Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
On 13/02/25 15:06, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list. [...]
A case could be made, I think, for banning Lolita. (And in fact it was
banned here at the time I read it.) At least half of the others, maybe
more, should be compulsory reading at senior high school level.
I can sort of understand why Tequila Mockingbird would be banned in
heavily racist states.
Who would ban The Lorax? Ah, I see; the climate change deniers.
Let's be grateful for small mercies, though. There probably won't be new bannings in the US as long as you have a president who can't read.
On 13/02/25 15:06, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
A case could be made, I think, for banning Lolita. (And in fact it was
banned here at the time I read it.) At least half of the others, maybe
more, should be compulsory reading at senior high school level.
I can sort of understand why Tequila Mockingbird would be banned in
heavily racist states.
Who would ban The Lorax? Ah, I see; the climate change deniers.
Let's be grateful for small mercies, though. There probably won't be new bannings in the US as long as you have a president who can't read.
On 13/02/25 15:06, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
A case could be made, I think, for banning Lolita. (And in fact it was
banned here at the time I read it.) At least half of the others, maybe
more, should be compulsory reading at senior high school level.
I can sort of understand why Tequila Mockingbird would be banned in
heavily racist states.
Who would ban The Lorax? Ah, I see; the climate change deniers.
Let's be grateful for small mercies, though. There probably won't be new bannings in the US as long as you have a president who can't read.
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Excellent! Will read again.
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
Judith
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries.
What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What
does it even mean by "banned"?
Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6)
or even middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they
would be right, for the most part.
In article <volvhp$34acl$[email protected]>, BCFD 36 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/12/25 20:06, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries.
What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What
does it even mean by "banned"?
Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6)
or even middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they
would be right, for the most part.
Bingo.
When these are tracked down, generally it turns out it was
way back in the days when "Banned in Boston!" was a selling
point, and Boston actually banned books.
a grammar school library declines to stock a book generally
inappropriate for pre-teens (A Clockwork Orange is arguably
in this category, as is Lolita) it's hyped as a "Banned book."
I don't count it as a "Ban" unless it's currently legally
prohibited from being sold to adults. I'm not sure I know
of any books that meet that standard, in the US, anyway.
Unless it's a book of kiddie porn with pictures, maybe,
if someone's actually trying to market such a thing.
On 14/02/25 08:21, D wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Excellent! Will read again.
I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had lost
its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read once" book.
Many of the other books on the list can be read with pleasure multiple
times.
Having said that, I still acknowledge that Catch-22 is an important
literary work. In fact, when I released my mailing list manager, I
called it MajorMajor.
On 14/02/25 08:21, D wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Excellent! Will read again.
I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had lost
its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read once" book.
Many of the other books on the list can be read with pleasure multiple
times.
Having said that, I still acknowledge that Catch-22 is an important
literary work. In fact, when I released my mailing list manager, I
called it MajorMajor.
On 14/02/25 08:21, D wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Excellent! Will read again.
I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had lost
its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read once" book.
Many of the other books on the list can be read with pleasure multiple
times.
Having said that, I still acknowledge that Catch-22 is an important
literary work. In fact, when I released my mailing list manager, I
called it MajorMajor.
In article <volvhp$34acl$[email protected]>, BCFD 36 <[email protected]> wrote: >>On 2/12/25 20:06, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries.
What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What
does it even mean by "banned"?
Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6)
or even middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they
would be right, for the most part.
Bingo.
When these are tracked down, generally it turns out it was
way back in the days when "Banned in Boston!" was a selling
point, and Boston actually banned books. Other times, when
a grammar school library declines to stock a book generally
inappropriate for pre-teens (A Clockwork Orange is arguably
in this category, as is Lolita) it's hyped as a "Banned book."
I don't count it as a "Ban" unless it's currently legally
prohibited from being sold to adults. I'm not sure I know
of any books that meet that standard, in the US, anyway.
Unless it's a book of kiddie porn with pictures, maybe,
if someone's actually trying to market such a thing.
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 08:46:55 +1100, Peter Moylan <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 14/02/25 08:21, D wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Excellent! Will read again.
I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had lost
its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read once" book.
Many of the other books on the list can be read with pleasure multiple
times.
"Read once" vs. "read multiple times" -
In my youth, almost every book of fiction was "read once".
I read fast, but I remembered large amounts word-for-word
and that made re-reading less pleasant. But I did develop a
habit of re-reading series, where the latter stories added
depth to what I had picked up on first-read.
I still read fast, which I've realized is often "too fast."
Especially, I still missed a lot of social interplay and clever
dialog, even though I try to pay more attention. These days,
I'll re-read a book within a few weeks if I did enjoy it.
Back in the early days when I seldom re-read, the one book
that fascinated me enough to re-read was "Cat's Cradle."
To my surprise, it did not surprise me at all -- it seemed to
evoke only the same insights and reactions that had impressed
me on the first reading.
Having said that, I still acknowledge that Catch-22 is an important
literary work. In fact, when I released my mailing list manager, I
called it MajorMajor.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
Mini review time!
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Boring!
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 08:46:55 +1100, Peter Moylan <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 14/02/25 08:21, D wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Excellent! Will read again.
I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had lost
its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read once" book.
Many of the other books on the list can be read with pleasure multiple >>times.
"Read once" vs. "read multiple times" -
In my youth, almost every book of fiction was "read once".
I read fast, but I remembered large amounts word-for-word
and that made re-reading less pleasant. But I did develop a
habit of re-reading series, where the latter stories added
depth to what I had picked up on first-read.
I still read fast, which I've realized is often "too fast."
Especially, I still missed a lot of social interplay and clever
dialog, even though I try to pay more attention. These days,
I'll re-read a book within a few weeks if I did enjoy it.
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
Mini review time!
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Boring!
And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
inferences I was making. When I read it the second time, I also reread
it the third time because I had to slow myself down practically every
chapter and reread it again, much more slowly. There is a /lot/ of
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 11:32:53 +0100, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
Mini review time!
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Boring!
And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
Are you sure you know the story? That is, what the phrase actually
means?
I have only seen it in movie form; perhaps the book is different.
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
Mini review time!
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Boring!
And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
Jan
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 11:32:53 +0100, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
Mini review time!
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Boring!
And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
Are you sure you know the story? That is, what the phrase actually
means?
I have only seen it in movie form; perhaps the book is different.
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 11:32:53 +0100, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out >>>>> this list.
Mini review time!
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Boring!
And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
Are you sure you know the story? That is, what the phrase actually
means?
I have only seen it in movie form; perhaps the book is different.
First line of the synopsis of the book:
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.
You do know what a bluejay is, I hope?
On 2/12/25 20:06, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
Judith
What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What does it
even mean by "banned"?
Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6) or even
middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they would be right, for
the most part.
There are places where The Bible has been banned due to sex, violence, rape, murder, slavery, and the like much to the Christian Taliban's chagrin.
There are too many gray areas that this post does not color in for it to be of
any use.
And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and
said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister.
And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.
And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt
be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto
the king; for he will not withhold me from thee.
Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.
Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated
her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone.
First line of the synopsis of the book:
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.
On 16/02/25 06:59, J. J. Lodder wrote:
First line of the synopsis of the book:
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.
Where did that synopsis come from? I don't recall reading it. Perhaps
that is because I read the book, not the synopsis.
I presume that the the author did not write the synopsis. Is it fair to criticise a book based on something the author did not write?
--
====
Synopsis
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but
remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird". This is a lawyer's advice to
his children as he defends the real mockingbird of this story � a black
man charged with raping a white girl in the Deep South of the 1930s
(The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition)
====
PS The bluejay is a strictly North American species.
It is best compared to the Eurasian Magpie. (Pica pica)
This is a very intelligent bird, comparable in abilities to great apes.
It is the only non-mamalian species known to pass the mirror test.
--
This marks the below as a "sig". Getting Agent to keep it in the reply required extra effort. Was that intended?
Peter Moylan wrote:Subject: Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned
J. J. Lodder wrote:
First line of the synopsis of the book:
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.
Where did that synopsis come from? I don't recall reading it. Perhaps
that is because I read the book, not the synopsis.
Your edition will probably not have had it.
The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition
(Harper Collins) begins with it.
Evidently the series editors see it as -the- key sentence of the book.
It is probably absent in other editions. (full text in .sig)
Note that 'shoot all the bluejays you want' is positive advice.
So here we see a thoroughly nasty 'good' American.
I presume that the the author did not write the synopsis. Is it fair to
criticise a book based on something the author did not write?
But he did. It is quoted verbatim from a line in the text,
Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 16/02/25 06:59, J. J. Lodder wrote:
First line of the synopsis of the book:
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.
Where did that synopsis come from? I don't recall reading it. Perhaps
that is because I read the book, not the synopsis.
Your edition will probably not have had it.
The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition
(Harper Collins) begins with it.
Evidently the series editors see it as -the- key sentence of the book.
It is probably absent in other editions. (full text in .sig)
Note that 'shoot all the bluejays you want' is positive advice.
So here we see a thoroughly nasty 'good' American.
I presume that the the author did not write the synopsis. Is it fair to
criticise a book based on something the author did not write?
But he did. It is quoted verbatim from a line in the text,
====
Synopsis
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but
remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird". This is a lawyer's advice to
his children as he defends the real mockingbird of this story - a black
man charged with raping a white girl in the Deep South of the 1930s
(The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition)
====
PS The bluejay is a strictly North American species.
It is best compared to the Eurasian Magpie. (Pica pica)
This is a very intelligent bird, comparable in abilities to great apes.
It is the only non-mamalian species known to pass the mirror test.
Paul S Person wrote:
--
This marks the below as a "sig". Getting Agent to keep it in the reply required extra effort. Was that intended?
Yes.
Peter Moylan wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
First line of the synopsis of the book:
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.
Where did that synopsis come from? I don't recall reading it. Perhaps
that is because I read the book, not the synopsis.
Your edition will probably not have had it.
The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition
(Harper Collins) begins with it.
Evidently the series editors see it as -the- key sentence of the book.
It is probably absent in other editions. (full text in .sig)
Note that 'shoot all the bluejays you want' is positive advice.
So here we see a thoroughly nasty 'good' American.
I presume that the the author did not write the synopsis. Is it fair to
criticise a book based on something the author did not write?
But he did. It is quoted verbatim from a line in the text,
====
Synopsis
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but
remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird". This is a lawyer's advice to
his children as he defends the real mockingbird of this story - a black
man charged with raping a white girl in the Deep South of the 1930s
(The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition)
====
PS The bluejay is a strictly North American species.
It is best compared to the Eurasian Magpie. (Pica pica)
This is a very intelligent bird, comparable in abilities to great apes.
It is the only non-mamalian species known to pass the mirror test.
Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 16/02/25 06:59, J. J. Lodder wrote:
First line of the synopsis of the book:
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.
Where did that synopsis come from? I don't recall reading it. Perhaps
that is because I read the book, not the synopsis.
Your edition will probably not have had it.
The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition
(Harper Collins) begins with it.
Evidently the series editors see it as -the- key sentence of the book.
It is probably absent in other editions. (full text in .sig)
Note that 'shoot all the bluejays you want' is positive advice.
So here we see a thoroughly nasty 'good' American.
On 14/02/25 08:21, D wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Excellent! Will read again.
I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had lost
its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read once" book.
Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/02/25 08:21, D wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Excellent! Will read again.
I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had
lost its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read
once" book.
Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.
On 17/02/25 07:57, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/02/25 08:21, D wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Excellent! Will read again.
I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had
lost its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read
once" book.
Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.
I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".
Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.
I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".
Peter Moylan wrote:
[...]
Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.
I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been
disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".
My experience is that the first item is the best. If I see the film
first, the book doesn't live up to it and vice versa.
The only time this was not the case was when watching "Lord of the
Rings". Book and film matched perfectly. I should add that it's been
several decades since I read the book.
Peter Moylan wrote:
Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.
I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been
disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".
My experience is that the first item is the best. If I see the film
first, the book doesn't live up to it and vice versa.
The only time this was not the case was when watching "Lord of the
Rings". Book and film matched perfectly. I should add that it's been
several decades since I read the book.
The only time this was not the case was when watching "Lord of the
Rings". Book and film matched perfectly. I should add that it's been
several decades since I read the book.
I presume you're referring to the films out of New Zealand, which
generally get a lot of praise.
Also, AirNZ did several safety briefing
films using the LoTR theme, such as
<URL:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBlRbrB_Gnc>
On 17/02/25 12:16, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 17/02/25 07:57, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Peter Moylan� <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/02/25 08:21, D wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Excellent! Will read again.
I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had
lost its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read
once" book.
Have you seen the film?� The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.
I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been
disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".
Catch-22 was my favourite 'documentary" for decades and whilst I enjoyed
the film, it had nowhere near the impact of the book. It is decades
since last read but I have reread it many times. The trouble with the
film is that when I think of characters in the book, I see characters
from the film who were rarely developed or expressed as well as in the
book. Now, I feel like reading it again.
Paul S Person wrote:
--
This marks the below as a "sig". Getting Agent to keep it in the reply
required extra effort. Was that intended?
Yes.
If you click on the body and press Ctrl-A, the whole body including the
sig is marked. Now an R will start a response with the sig included.
... I think. It's been years since I used Agent.
Snidely wrote:
The only time this was not the case was when watching "Lord of the
Rings". Book and film matched perfectly. I should add that it's been
several decades since I read the book.
I presume you're referring to the films out of New Zealand, which
generally get a lot of praise.
Yes.
Quoted content corrected.<this is claimed to be a synopsis from an edition of /To Kill a
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Synopsis
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but
remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird". This is a lawyer's advice to
his children as he defends the real mockingbird of this story - a black
man charged with raping a white girl in the Deep South of the 1930s
(The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition) <snippo>
The simplest search substantiates your statements. Thank you for the >additional information about bluejays.
at all until you realize that PJ treated the book as a series of
Action Sequences separated by boring things like character development
or plot.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:20:59 +0000, Hibou ><[email protected]d> wrote:
<snippo other book/film pairs>
/Three Days of the Condor/ worked well -- but the book was /Six Days
of the Condor/, so we lost three days!
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.
The problem isn't that changes are made -- changes are always made
when a book is filmed. The problem is that the changes make no sense
at all until you realize that PJ treated the book as a series of
Action Sequences separated by boring things like character
development or plot.
Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but in
some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.
--scott
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
If you click on the body and press Ctrl-A, the whole body including the
sig is marked. Now an R will start a response with the sig included.
... I think. It's been years since I used Agent.
Which is, of course, what I did.
Incidentally, if you highlight (say) one paragraph and hit R, that
paragraph is all you see in the reply.
When I eventually tracked it down, I could not figure out which
passage(s) were the offending ones that got up the beard of Ayatollah Khomeini. Ironic, given that the fatwah was issued by a follower of an illiterate Prophet.
occam wrote:
When I eventually tracked it down, I could not figure out which
passage(s) were the offending ones that got up the beard of Ayatollah
Khomeini. Ironic, given that the fatwah was issued by a follower of an
illiterate Prophet.
Maybe they just reacted to the title?
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:20:59 +0000, Hibou >><[email protected]d> wrote:
<snippo other book/film pairs>
/Three Days of the Condor/ worked well -- but the book was /Six Days
of the Condor/, so we lost three days!
That's a special case. The book itself was just depressingly awful and
went on too long as well. The movie made from it is one of my favorite >films.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:29:20 +0000, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:17:17 -0000 (UTC), Don <[email protected]> wrote:..
Quoted content corrected.<this is claimed to be a synopsis from an edition of /To Kill a
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Mockingbird/>
<snippo>Synopsis
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but
remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird". This is a lawyer's advice to >>>> his children as he defends the real mockingbird of this story - a black >>>> man charged with raping a white girl in the Deep South of the 1930s
(The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition)
The simplest search substantiates your statements. Thank you for the >>>additional information about bluejays.
If actual research shows Tom to be the mockingbird rather than Boo,
then the book must differ considerably from the film.
When we read the book in seventh grade, we had a
discussion about who was a mockingbird. I think
we decided on both Tom and Boo, and maybe other
people too. I seem to recall a feeling of
spending too much time taking a figure of speech
too literally.
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some cases, entire countries. [...]
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Boring!
And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
Ar an cúigiú lá déag de mí Feabhra, scríobh J. J. Lodder:
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some cases, entire countries. [...]
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Boring!
And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
There’s nothing specifically American about hunting. Though yes, this situation
is not hunting in the usual sense.
Ar an c�igi� l� d�ag de m� Feabhra, scr�obh J. J. Lodder:
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some cases, entire countries. [...]
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Boring!
And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
There's nothing specifically American about hunting.
Though yes, this situation is not hunting in the usual sense.
There’s nothing specifically American about hunting. Though yes, this situation
is not hunting in the usual sense.
Hunting is deeply imbedded in US culture. Hence the NRA.
Some unfortunate soul, thrown into quote hell by Bertil wrote;Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
There's nothing specifically American about hunting. Though yes, this
situation is not hunting in the usual sense.
Hunting is deeply imbedded in US culture. Hence the NRA.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:31:35 +0000
Aidan Kehoe <[email protected]> wrote:
Ar an cúigiú lá déag de mí Feabhra, scríobh J. J. Lodder:
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some >> > > > cases, entire countries. [...]
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Boring!
And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
There’s nothing specifically American about hunting. Though yes, this situation
is not hunting in the usual sense.
Hunting is deeply imbedded in US culture. Hence the NRA.
Hunting is deeply imbedded in US culture. Hence the NRA.
Aidan Kehoe <[email protected]> wrote:
Ar an c�igi� l� d�ag de m� Feabhra, scr�obh J. J. Lodder:
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some >> > > > cases, entire countries. [...]
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Boring!
And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
There's nothing specifically American about hunting.
Of course not, it goes back in our ancestors for millions of years.
And the chimps also do it.
What seems to be particular about the American way of hunting
is the mass-murder aspect it may have,
like in senselessly killing of herds of bison, or flocks of pigeons.
This is more like a few wolves killing off whole herds of sheep,
or school shooters killing all they can hit,
for no other reason than that they can.
Kerr-Mudd, John <[email protected]> wrote:
Hunting is deeply imbedded in US culture. Hence the NRA.
The NRA doesn't care about hunting. It used to be they did; when you opened >up the NRA magazine there were articles about trap shooting and articles about >deer hunting and rabbit hunting and recipes and all kinds of cool stuff. Now >it's just all political lunacy about how everybody needs guns to feel >protected and how evil politicians are going to take our guns away and so >forth. There's occasionally the article on skeet shooting or something but >the organization and the audience have completely changed.
I miss the NRA when they actually cared about hunting and sport.
Kerr-Mudd, John <[email protected]> wrote:
Hunting is deeply imbedded in US culture. Hence the NRA.
The NRA doesn't care about hunting. It used to be they did; when you opened up the NRA magazine there were articles about trap shooting and articles about
deer hunting and rabbit hunting and recipes and all kinds of cool stuff. Now it's just all political lunacy about how everybody needs guns to feel protected and how evil politicians are going to take our guns away and so forth. There's occasionally the article on skeet shooting or something but the organization and the audience have completely changed.
I miss the NRA when they actually cared about hunting and sport.
--scott
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when >historical events are listed.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Kerr-Mudd, John <[email protected]> wrote:
Hunting is deeply imbedded in US culture. Hence the NRA.
The NRA doesn't care about hunting. It used to be they did; when you opened >> up the NRA magazine there were articles about trap shooting and articles about
deer hunting and rabbit hunting and recipes and all kinds of cool stuff. Now
it's just all political lunacy about how everybody needs guns to feel
protected and how evil politicians are going to take our guns away and so
forth. There's occasionally the article on skeet shooting or something but >> the organization and the audience have completely changed.
I miss the NRA when they actually cared about hunting and sport.
Do you own a gun?
Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost
always find a point where they stopped writing short novels and
turned to producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems
to be abrupt.
This is frequently true.
Two obvious counterexamples, though: Asimov, who never started
producing doorstops and continued writing short original stuff. And
Elron, who started out producing doorstops but found short stories
easier to sell until he created a new market for his doorstops.
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Kerr-Mudd, John <[email protected]> wrote:
Hunting is deeply imbedded in US culture. Hence the NRA.
The NRA doesn't care about hunting. It used to be they did; when you opened
up the NRA magazine there were articles about trap shooting and articles about
deer hunting and rabbit hunting and recipes and all kinds of cool stuff. Now
it's just all political lunacy about how everybody needs guns to feel
protected and how evil politicians are going to take our guns away and so >>> forth. There's occasionally the article on skeet shooting or something but >>> the organization and the audience have completely changed.
I miss the NRA when they actually cared about hunting and sport.
Do you own a gun?
Not any more. I borrow one from my wife if I need one.
--scott
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
I don't feel bad about the dodo, which apparently tasted fishy and greasy, >but the passenger pigeon was absolutely delicious we are told. And I will >never have the opportunity to eat mammoth, sadly.
Howard Waldrop's _The Ugly Chickens_ is one of the best SF stories ever >written but is not historically accurate regarding the flavour of dodo.
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when >>historical events are listed.
God may have given us dominion over the earth and the seas but that does
not seem to me to be a license to just wreck it all.
On 20 Feb 2025 00:40:03 -0000, [email protected] (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:greasy,
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
I don't feel bad about the dodo, which apparently tasted fishy and =
but the passenger pigeon was absolutely delicious we are told. And I =will
never have the opportunity to eat mammoth, sadly.
Howard Waldrop's _The Ugly Chickens_ is one of the best SF stories ever >>written but is not historically accurate regarding the flavour of dodo.
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when >>>historical events are listed.
God may have given us dominion over the earth and the seas but that does= >=20
not seem to me to be a license to just wreck it all.
My first introduction to environmentalism was when I was in my youth
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
I don't feel bad about the dodo, which apparently tasted fishy and greasy, but the passenger pigeon was absolutely delicious we are told. And I will never have the opportunity to eat mammoth, sadly.
Howard Waldrop's _The Ugly Chickens_ is one of the best SF stories ever written but is not historically accurate regarding the flavour of dodo.
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when >historical events are listed.
God may have given us dominion over the earth and the seas but that does
not seem to me to be a license to just wreck it all.
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> writes:
On 20 Feb 2025 00:40:03 -0000, [email protected] (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:greasy,
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
I don't feel bad about the dodo, which apparently tasted fishy and =
but the passenger pigeon was absolutely delicious we are told. And I =will
never have the opportunity to eat mammoth, sadly.
Howard Waldrop's _The Ugly Chickens_ is one of the best SF stories ever
written but is not historically accurate regarding the flavour of dodo.
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when
historical events are listed.
God may have given us dominion over the earth and the seas but that does= >> =20
not seem to me to be a license to just wreck it all.
My first introduction to environmentalism was when I was in my youth
Likewise - My fifth grade teacher used Tom Lehrer's song _Pollution_
as a teaching aid.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things. >> --scott
What is this? Did I miss a jewel?
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Why not the Starchild Trilogy? It changed how I thought about many things.
What is this? Did I miss a jewel?
Howard Waldrop's _The Ugly Chickens_ is one of the best SF stories ever written ...........
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:25:03 +0100, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Aidan Kehoe <[email protected]> wrote:
Ar an cúigiú lá déag de mí Feabhra, scríobh J. J. Lodder:
> D <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
> >
> > > Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last >>> > > > century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some >>> > > > cases, entire countries. [...]
> > > To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
> >
> > Boring!
>
> And thoroughly American-nasty.
> The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
> because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
> put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
> Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
There's nothing specifically American about hunting.
Of course not, it goes back in our ancestors for millions of years.
And the chimps also do it.
What seems to be particular about the American way of hunting
is the mass-murder aspect it may have,
like in senselessly killing of herds of bison, or flocks of pigeons.
This is more like a few wolves killing off whole herds of sheep,
or school shooters killing all they can hit,
for no other reason than that they can.
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when historical events are listed.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> writes:
On 20 Feb 2025 00:40:03 -0000, [email protected] (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:greasy,
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly) >>>> and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were >>>> the responsibility of others.
I don't feel bad about the dodo, which apparently tasted fishy and =
but the passenger pigeon was absolutely delicious we are told. And I = >> will
never have the opportunity to eat mammoth, sadly.
Howard Waldrop's _The Ugly Chickens_ is one of the best SF stories ever >>> written but is not historically accurate regarding the flavour of dodo. >>>
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when
historical events are listed.
God may have given us dominion over the earth and the seas but that does= >> =20
not seem to me to be a license to just wreck it all.
My first introduction to environmentalism was when I was in my youth
Likewise - My fifth grade teacher used Tom Lehrer's song _Pollution_
as a teaching aid.
Tom Lehrer is excellent! He is the Donald Trump of public teachers! =D
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:25:03 +0100, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Aidan Kehoe <[email protected]> wrote:
Ar an c�igi� l� d�ag de m� Feabhra, scr�obh J. J. Lodder:
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last >> > > > century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some >> > > > cases, entire countries. [...]
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Boring!
And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
There's nothing specifically American about hunting.
Of course not, it goes back in our ancestors for millions of years.
And the chimps also do it.
What seems to be particular about the American way of hunting
is the mass-murder aspect it may have,
like in senselessly killing of herds of bison, or flocks of pigeons.
This is more like a few wolves killing off whole herds of sheep,
or school shooters killing all they can hit,
for no other reason than that they can.
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when historical events are listed.
Scott Dorsey <[email protected]> wrote:So people-given power (democracy) implies no moral responsibilities?
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
I don't feel bad about the dodo, which apparently tasted fishy and
greasy,
but the passenger pigeon was absolutely delicious we are told. And I
will
never have the opportunity to eat mammoth, sadly.
Howard Waldrop's _The Ugly Chickens_ is one of the best SF stories ever
written but is not historically accurate regarding the flavour of dodo.
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when >>>historical events are listed.
God may have given us dominion over the earth and the seas but that does
not seem to me to be a license to just wreck it all.
Not even staunch Calvinists feel that way.
All god-given power implies moral responsibilities.
To ignore those is vanity, and that is a sin before the lord,Thus is atheism convenient.
Jan
Scott Dorsey <[email protected]> wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
I don't feel bad about the dodo, which apparently tasted fishy and greasy, >> but the passenger pigeon was absolutely delicious we are told. And I will >> never have the opportunity to eat mammoth, sadly.
Howard Waldrop's _The Ugly Chickens_ is one of the best SF stories ever
written but is not historically accurate regarding the flavour of dodo.
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when
historical events are listed.
God may have given us dominion over the earth and the seas but that does
not seem to me to be a license to just wreck it all.
Not even staunch Calvinists feel that way.
All god-given power implies moral responsibilities.
To ignore those is vanity, and that is a sin before the lord,
Refreshing as it is to hear that the viewpoint is fading away, it is undeniable that people existed in the 50s and 60s and probably do
today who believe /precisely/ that "dominion" means we can do
whatever we want to with the planet.
Indeed, I would not be surprised if "concern for the environment" is considered to be a sign of that dreaded theological disease,
modernism, or even that abomination unto the Lord, liberalism, in
some more traditional quarters.
Deep and twisted in the totality of Christian theology, with many
strange byways and foetid parts.
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Kerr-Mudd, John <[email protected]> wrote:
Hunting is deeply imbedded in US culture. Hence the NRA.
The NRA doesn't care about hunting. It used to be they did; when you
opened up the NRA magazine there were articles about trap shooting and
articles about deer hunting and rabbit hunting and recipes and all
kinds of cool stuff. Now it's just all political lunacy about how
everybody needs guns to feel protected and how evil politicians are
going to take our guns away and so forth. There's occasionally the
article on skeet shooting or something but the organization and the
audience have completely changed.
I miss the NRA when they actually cared about hunting and sport.
Do you own a gun?
Not any more. I borrow one from my wife if I need one.
On 2/19/25 7:40 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:oolly-mammoth-extinction
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
I don't feel bad about the dodo, which apparently tasted fishy and greasy, but the passenger pigeon was absolutely delicious we are told. And I will never have the opportunity to eat mammoth, sadly.
Or maybe you will! https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/06/1235944741/resurrecting-w
jerryfriedman wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 9:31:08 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:25:03 +0100, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Aidan Kehoe <[email protected]> wrote:
Ar an c�igi� l� d�ag de m� Feabhra, scr�obh J. J. Lodder:
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the >>>>> last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in >>>>> some
cases, entire countries. [...]
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Boring!
And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice >>>>> > put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
There's nothing specifically American about hunting.
Of course not, it goes back in our ancestors for millions of years.
And the chimps also do it.
What seems to be particular about the American way of hunting
is the mass-murder aspect it may have,
like in senselessly killing of herds of bison, or flocks of pigeons. >>>> This is more like a few wolves killing off whole herds of sheep,
or school shooters killing all they can hit,
for no other reason than that they can.
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
The predecessor colonies had nothing to do with it,
as it is all in the 19th century.
As for the Dodo, Wikip denies that hunting was the main reason
for them going extinct.
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when
historical events are listed.
Perhaps,
but I'm not aware of non-American prey species extinction
by massive hunting.
That's widely considered to be what happened to the
moas in New Zealand. The Great Auk was hunted to
extinction, mostly for its down, in Europe and North
America, though the last colony (near Iceland) was
wiped out for museum specimens, according to
Wikipedia.
The places to look for other examples would be islands.
OTOH, the USA did it deliberately,..
as part of scorched earth tactics.
<https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/what-happened-to-the-bison.htm>
It was ecocide as a means for ethnical cleansing.
Hunting for fun, or food, or even leather had little to do with it.
It seems to me that I've heard of one or two
similar examples, but I can't think of any, so
maybe not.
Exterminating the animals on which a pastoral foe depends on has a long history. It was done, e.g. in Ireland in the late 1500s. Of course,
with trains and better guns it became easier.
As A. L. Rowse frequently noted, events which took place in North
America were often foreshadowed in Ireland.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 9:31:08 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:25:03 +0100, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Aidan Kehoe <[email protected]> wrote:
Ar an c�igi� l� d�ag de m� Feabhra, scr�obh J. J. Lodder:
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the >>>> last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in >>>> some
cases, entire countries. [...]
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Boring!
And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
There's nothing specifically American about hunting.
Of course not, it goes back in our ancestors for millions of years.
And the chimps also do it.
What seems to be particular about the American way of hunting
is the mass-murder aspect it may have,
like in senselessly killing of herds of bison, or flocks of pigeons. >>>This is more like a few wolves killing off whole herds of sheep,
or school shooters killing all they can hit,
for no other reason than that they can.
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
The predecessor colonies had nothing to do with it,
as it is all in the 19th century.
As for the Dodo, Wikip denies that hunting was the main reason
for them going extinct.
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when
historical events are listed.
Perhaps,
but I'm not aware of non-American prey species extinction
by massive hunting.
That's widely considered to be what happened to the
moas in New Zealand. The Great Auk was hunted to
extinction, mostly for its down, in Europe and North
America, though the last colony (near Iceland) was
wiped out for museum specimens, according to
Wikipedia.
The places to look for other examples would be islands.
OTOH, the USA did it deliberately,..
as part of scorched earth tactics. <https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/what-happened-to-the-bison.htm>
It was ecocide as a means for ethnical cleansing.
Hunting for fun, or food, or even leather had little to do with it.
It seems to me that I've heard of one or two
similar examples, but I can't think of any, so
maybe not.
Tony Nance <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/25 7:40 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
I don't feel bad about the dodo, which apparently tasted fishy and greasy,
but the passenger pigeon was absolutely delicious we are told. And I will
never have the opportunity to eat mammoth, sadly.
Or maybe you will! https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/06/1235944741/resurrecting-woolly-mammoth-extinction
I don't want a woolly Mammoth!
I want a dwarf elephant!
A chamber elephant even!
Like one of the kinds our ancestors drove to extinction,
bred down a bit,
Jan
[]The places to look for other examples would be islands.
Certainly, as probably the Cyprus dwarf elephant.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:29:20 +0000, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:17:17 -0000 (UTC), Don <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted content corrected.<this is claimed to be a synopsis from an edition of /To Kill a Mockingbird/>
J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snippo>Synopsis
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but
remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird". This is a lawyer's advice to >>> his children as he defends the real mockingbird of this story - a black >>> man charged with raping a white girl in the Deep South of the 1930s
(The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition)
The simplest search substantiates your statements. Thank you for the >>additional information about bluejays.
If actual research shows Tom to be the mockingbird rather than Boo,..
then the book must differ considerably from the film.
When we read the book in seventh grade, we had a
discussion about who was a mockingbird. I think
we decided on both Tom and Boo, and maybe other
people too. I seem to recall a feeling of
spending too much time taking a figure of speech
too literally.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 10:47:49 +0100
[email protected] (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
[]
The places to look for other examples would be islands.
Certainly, as probably the Cyprus dwarf elephant.[]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeoloxodon_cypriotes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeoloxodon_falconeri
Doh, ISHRA.
PS 'kamerolifant(je)' is a Dutch word, meaning 'fatso, 'butterball',
'couch potato', etc. You get the idea.
The word is sadly lacking in English.
On 22/02/2025 12:50, J. J. Lodder wrote:
PS 'kamerolifant(je)' is a Dutch word, meaning 'fatso,
'butterball',
'couch potato', etc. You get the idea.
The word is sadly lacking in English.
Nice. It makes me wonder, does Dutch have the equivalent of 'the
elephant in the room', for an obvious problem that everyone
avoids mentioning?
Kerr-Mudd, John <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 10:47:49 +0100ng-w
[email protected] (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
Tony Nance <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/25 7:40 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly) >>>>>> and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were >>>>>> the responsibility of others.
I don't feel bad about the dodo, which apparently tasted fishy and
greasy, but the passenger pigeon was absolutely delicious we are
told. And I will never have the opportunity to eat mammoth, sadly.
Or maybe you will!
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/06/1235944741/resurrecti
oolly-mammoth-extinctionYou're a bit late, but if you just want the bones go to Malta.
I don't want a woolly Mammoth!
I want a dwarf elephant!
A chamber elephant even!
I know, but that's not a chamber elephant yet.
But who knows what 10 000 years of selective breeding
might have accomplished in the way of cuteness.
The problem probably was that those early neolithic farmers
hadn't yet invented newspapers for them to fetch.
Jan
PS 'kamerolifant(je)' is a Dutch word, meaning 'fatso, 'butterball',
'couch potato', etc. You get the idea.
The word is sadly lacking in English.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 9:31:08 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:25:03 +0100, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Aidan Kehoe <[email protected]> wrote:
Ar an c�igi� l� d�ag de m� Feabhra, scr�obh J. J. Lodder:
D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the >>>> last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in >>>> some
cases, entire countries. [...]
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Boring!
And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
There's nothing specifically American about hunting.
Of course not, it goes back in our ancestors for millions of years.
And the chimps also do it.
What seems to be particular about the American way of hunting
is the mass-murder aspect it may have,
like in senselessly killing of herds of bison, or flocks of pigeons. >>>This is more like a few wolves killing off whole herds of sheep,
or school shooters killing all they can hit,
for no other reason than that they can.
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
The predecessor colonies had nothing to do with it,
as it is all in the 19th century.
As for the Dodo, Wikip denies that hunting was the main reason
for them going extinct.
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when
historical events are listed.
Perhaps,
but I'm not aware of non-American prey species extinction
by massive hunting.
That's widely considered to be what happened to the
moas in New Zealand. The Great Auk was hunted to
extinction, mostly for its down, in Europe and North
America, though the last colony (near Iceland) was
wiped out for museum specimens, according to
Wikipedia.
The places to look for other examples would be islands.
OTOH, the USA did it deliberately,..
as part of scorched earth tactics. <https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/what-happened-to-the-bison.htm>
It was ecocide as a means for ethnical cleansing.
Hunting for fun, or food, or even leather had little to do with it.
It seems to me that I've heard of one or two
similar examples, but I can't think of any, so
maybe not.
Nice. It makes me wonder, does Dutch have the equivalent of 'the
elephant in the room', for an obvious problem that everyone avoids mentioning?
On 2/22/2025 7:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:i
Kerr-Mudd, John <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 10:47:49 +0100
[email protected] (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
Tony Nance <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/25 7:40 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:Or maybe you will!
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly) >>>>>> and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were >>>>>> the responsibility of others.
I don't feel bad about the dodo, which apparently tasted fishy and >>>>> greasy, but the passenger pigeon was absolutely delicious we are
told. And I will never have the opportunity to eat mammoth, sadly. >>>>
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/06/1235944741/resurrect
ng-w
oolly-mammoth-extinctionYou're a bit late, but if you just want the bones go to Malta.
I don't want a woolly Mammoth!
I want a dwarf elephant!
A chamber elephant even!
I know, but that's not a chamber elephant yet.
But who knows what 10 000 years of selective breeding
might have accomplished in the way of cuteness.
The problem probably was that those early neolithic farmers
hadn't yet invented newspapers for them to fetch.
Jan
PS 'kamerolifant(je)' is a Dutch word, meaning 'fatso, 'butterball',
'couch potato', etc. You get the idea.
The word is sadly lacking in English.
I think you want a 'mimoth' from Girl Genius. https://girlgenius.fandom.com/wiki/Mimmoth
BTW, the last known mammoths lived on Wrangel
Island in the high Arctic, as recently as
2000 BC.
On 2025-02-22, Phil <[email protected]d> wrote:
Nice. It makes me wonder, does Dutch have the equivalent of 'the
elephant in the room', for an obvious problem that everyone avoids mentioning?
Isn't this essentially the same as "the emperor's new clothes", so
"de nieuwe kleren van de keizer"?
On 22/02/2025 14:08, Phil wrote:
On 22/02/2025 12:50, J. J. Lodder wrote:
PS 'kamerolifant(je)' is a Dutch word, meaning 'fatso, 'butterball',
'couch potato', etc. You get the idea.
The word is sadly lacking in English.
Nice. It makes me wonder, does Dutch have the equivalent of 'the
elephant in the room', for an obvious problem that everyone avoids
mentioning?
De vinger in de dijk?
On 2025-02-22 08:18, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 22/02/2025 14:08, Phil wrote:
On 22/02/2025 12:50, J. J. Lodder wrote:
PS 'kamerolifant(je)' is a Dutch word, meaning 'fatso, 'butterball',
'couch potato', etc. You get the idea.
The word is sadly lacking in English.
Nice. It makes me wonder, does Dutch have the equivalent of 'the
elephant in the room', for an obvious problem that everyone avoids
mentioning?
De vinger in de dijk?
I often wonder how she reacted to that.
On 2025-02-22, Phil <[email protected]d> wrote:
Nice. It makes me wonder, does Dutch have the equivalent of 'the
elephant in the room', for an obvious problem that everyone avoids
mentioning?
Isn't this essentially the same as "the emperor's new clothes", so
"de nieuwe kleren van de keizer"?
jerryfriedman <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 22:15:22 +0000, William Hyde wrote:
jerryfriedman wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 9:31:08 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[extirpating bison]
OTOH, the USA did it deliberately,..
as part of scorched earth tactics.
<https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/what-happened-to-the-bison.htm>
It was ecocide as a means for ethnical cleansing.
Hunting for fun, or food, or even leather had little to do with it.
It seems to me that I've heard of one or two
similar examples, but I can't think of any, so
maybe not.
Exterminating the animals on which a pastoral foe depends on has a long
history. It was done, e.g. in Ireland in the late 1500s. Of course,
with trains and better guns it became easier.
As A. L. Rowse frequently noted, events which took place in North
America were often foreshadowed in Ireland.
Thanks, I didn't know that. But I was thinking of
what Jan called ecocide, killing wild species.
More than just species, an ecosystem.
Massive use by the USA of 'Agent Orange' and other defoliants in Vietnam
is another good candidate for an attempt at ecocide,
On 2025-02-22, Phil <[email protected]d> wrote:
Nice. It makes me wonder, does Dutch have the equivalent of 'the
elephant in the room', for an obvious problem that everyone avoids
mentioning?
Isn't this essentially the same as "the emperor's new clothes", so
"de nieuwe kleren van de keizer"?
On 2/22/2025 2:59 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:ct
Cryptoengineer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/22/2025 7:50 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Kerr-Mudd, John <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 10:47:49 +0100
[email protected] (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
Tony Nance <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/25 7:40 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:Or maybe you will!
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were >>>>>>>> the responsibility of others.
I don't feel bad about the dodo, which apparently tasted fishy and >>>>>>> greasy, but the passenger pigeon was absolutely delicious we are >>>>>>> told. And I will never have the opportunity to eat mammoth, sadly. >>>>>>
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/06/1235944741/resurre
i
ng-w
oolly-mammoth-extinctionYou're a bit late, but if you just want the bones go to Malta.
I don't want a woolly Mammoth!
I want a dwarf elephant!
A chamber elephant even!
I know, but that's not a chamber elephant yet.
But who knows what 10 000 years of selective breeding
might have accomplished in the way of cuteness.
The problem probably was that those early neolithic farmers
hadn't yet invented newspapers for them to fetch.
Jan
PS 'kamerolifant(je)' is a Dutch word, meaning 'fatso, 'butterball',
'couch potato', etc. You get the idea.
The word is sadly lacking in English.
I think you want a 'mimoth' from Girl Genius.
https://girlgenius.fandom.com/wiki/Mimmoth
Yes, but that is a fantasy entity.
De 'het kamerolifantje' is as real as the 'couch potato'.
BTW, the last known mammoths lived on Wrangel
Island in the high Arctic, as recently as
2000 BC.
Not dwarf ones, nor of relevance for the Middle East.
The contested dwarf mammoth species might have lived on an island
in Lake Baikal, thus within range of possible transport to Egypt.
For the contested image, search on 'tomb of Rekhmire'. <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rekhmire_tomb_elephant.jpg>
Interesting. Could it be a baby elephant, with a non-eyewitness
artist simply assuming tusks?
Agent Orange and similar defoliants are something entirely different.
They weren't expected to kill off the VC and NVA by starvation or such,
that was just an effort to deny them cover. Same general effect as
using a flamethrower or explosives to destroy a building.
On 2/23/2025 5:37 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Cryptoengineer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/22/2025 2:59 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Cryptoengineer <[email protected]> wrote:
BTW, the last known mammoths lived on Wrangel
Island in the high Arctic, as recently as
2000 BC.
Not dwarf ones, nor of relevance for the Middle East.
The contested dwarf mammoth species might have lived on an island
in Lake Baikal, thus within range of possible transport to Egypt.
For the contested image, search on 'tomb of Rekhmire'.
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rekhmire_tomb_elephant.jpg>
Interesting. Could it be a baby elephant, with a non-eyewitness
artist simply assuming tusks?
Look again.
It may be interpreted as having the characteristic Mammoth hump,
which is obviously not African.
The artist must have been familiar with the North African elephant, (Loxodonta africana pharaohensis, now extinct)
because they could be seen on an everyday basis in his days. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_elephant>
Their habitat was the coasts of the Red Sea and the Southern Med.
Hannibal may have used up the last ones.
High and mighty rulers all over the world are known to have had zoos,
with rare animals transported over long distances at great expense.
The Rekhmire tomb may be evidence for the existence of dwarf mammoths
in historic times.
With some incredible luck they may find a mummified one,
I'm not convinced.
Check out the entire panel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rekhmire
Look at the leftmost servant. He is carrying a full-scale
elephant tusk, far larger than could have come from a
miniature.
The artist isn't exactly a hyperrealist - for example, what
is the animal in front of the elephant?
Note that the elephant also lacks tusks, so is a female or
an infant.
Based on a preponderance of the evidence, it seems far more
likely that this is an infant elephant, not a miniature
mammoth. The former we know existed at the time, there's no
evidence for the latter.
On 2025-02-22, Phil <[email protected]d> wrote:
Nice. It makes me wonder, does Dutch have the equivalent of 'the
elephant in the room', for an obvious problem that everyone avoids
mentioning?
Isn't this essentially the same as "the emperor's new clothes", so
"de nieuwe kleren van de keizer"?
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 22:20:53 +0100, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Scott Dorsey <[email protected]> wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
I don't feel bad about the dodo, which apparently tasted fishy and greasy, >>> but the passenger pigeon was absolutely delicious we are told. And I will >>> never have the opportunity to eat mammoth, sadly.
Howard Waldrop's _The Ugly Chickens_ is one of the best SF stories ever
written but is not historically accurate regarding the flavour of dodo.
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when
historical events are listed.
God may have given us dominion over the earth and the seas but that does >>> not seem to me to be a license to just wreck it all.
Not even staunch Calvinists feel that way.
All god-given power implies moral responsibilities.
To ignore those is vanity, and that is a sin before the lord,
Refreshing as it is to hear that the viewpoint is fading away, it is >undeniable that people existed in the 50s and 60s and probably do
today who believe /precisely/ that "dominion" means we can do whatever
we want to with the planet.
Indeed, I would not be surprised if "concern for the environment" is >considered to be a sign of that dreaded theological disease,
modernism, or even that abomination unto the Lord, liberalism, in some
more traditional quarters.
Deep and twisted in the totality of Christian theology, with many
strange byways and foetid parts.
Agent Orange as well as napalm were never intended to be used the way they >wound up. Agent Orange was mostly 2,4-D and the notion is that it was going >to be a non-toxic way to expose the HCM trail so Americans could at least >determine the amount of traffic coming down from the north and maybe stop it. >Napalm was also originally intended as a defoliant for more rapid spot use.
On 23 Feb 2025 15:56:12 -0000, [email protected] (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Agent Orange as well as napalm were never intended to be used the way they >>wound up. Agent Orange was mostly 2,4-D and the notion is that it was going >>to be a non-toxic way to expose the HCM trail so Americans could at least >>determine the amount of traffic coming down from the north and maybe stop it. >>Napalm was also originally intended as a defoliant for more rapid spot use.
I recall reading in "Popular Mechanics" back in the early 1950ws about
the uses of napalm in the Korean War. A particularly vivid memory was
a diagram showing the effects of dropping it at either entrance of a
railway tunnel with the train inside. If the people on the train
didn't burn to death, they would suffocate from lack of oxygen as the
napalm consumed it all.
On 13/02/25 15:06, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
A case could be made, I think, for banning Lolita. (And in fact it was
banned here at the time I read it.) At least half of the others, maybe
more, should be compulsory reading at senior high school level.
I can sort of understand why Tequila Mockingbird would be banned in
heavily racist states.
Who would ban The Lorax? Ah, I see; the climate change deniers.
Let's be grateful for small mercies, though. There probably won't be new >bannings in the US as long as you have a president who can't read.
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
Judith
On 14/02/25 08:21, D wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Excellent! Will read again.
I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had lost
its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read once" book.
Many of the other books on the list can be read with pleasure multiple
times.
Having said that, I still acknowledge that Catch-22 is an important
literary work. In fact, when I released my mailing list manager, I
called it MajorMajor.
I'm reminded of this tale. So, this dude's getting the grand tour
of some fancy-pants elementary school for whiz kids, right?
When I first read /The Hunger Games/, I read it lickity-split and then >mistook subconscious items I had retained without realing it for
inferences I was making. When I read it the second time, I also reread
it the third time because I had to slow myself down practically every
chapter and reread it again, much more slowly. There is a /lot/ of
background info that Katniss, who is telling the story in first-person >present, provides.
Having said that, I still acknowledge that Catch-22 is an important >>literary work. In fact, when I released my mailing list manager, I
called it MajorMajor.
Was it ever promoted to MajorMajorMajor?
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 08:38:11 -0800, Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
Having said that, I still acknowledge that Catch-22 is an
important literary work. In fact, when I released my mailing list
manager, I called it MajorMajor.
Was it ever promoted to MajorMajorMajor?
No - Major M Major (where his middle initial was of course M for
Major) was promoted to Major Major Major Major (after all you
couldn't have Captain Major Major Major could you?)
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 09:02:31 -0800, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
When I first read /The Hunger Games/, I read it lickity-split and then >>mistook subconscious items I had retained without realing it for
inferences I was making. When I read it the second time, I also reread
it the third time because I had to slow myself down practically every >>chapter and reread it again, much more slowly. There is a /lot/ of >>background info that Katniss, who is telling the story in first-person >>present, provides.
Besides of course her age was there any reason at all to ban Hunger
Games? I mean there was plenty of stuff at least as bad in 1984 which
was not to be knowledge ever banned and mercifully by the time I read
it (or more accurately Nineteen Eighty-Four - Orwell never allowed use
of the number as a title) we knew the concept of an anti-utopia quite
well.
I believe I've heard that Christians believed
for a long time - along with a "young earth"
and creationism - that species extinction
didn't, wouldn't happen. That whatever God had
crested would continue to exist - unless he
changed his mind about that. And so species
didn't need to be protected from destructive
exploitation. God was protecting them.
On 20/02/2025 00:40, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
I don't feel bad about the dodo, which apparently tasted fishy and greasy, but the passenger pigeon was absolutely delicious we are told. And I will never have the opportunity to eat mammoth, sadly.
Howard Waldrop's _The Ugly Chickens_ is one of the best SF stories ever written but is not historically accurate regarding the flavour of dodo.
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when
historical events are listed.
God may have given us dominion over the earth and the seas but that does not seem to me to be a license to just wreck it all.
--scott
I believe I've heard that Christians believed
for a long time - along with a "young earth"
and creationism - that species extinction
didn't, wouldn't happen. That whatever God had
crested would continue to exist - unless he
changed his mind about that. And so species
didn't need to be protected from destructive
exploitation. God was protecting them.
I believe I've heard that Christians believed
for a long time - along with a "young earth"
and creationism - that species extinction
didn't, wouldn't happen. That whatever God had
crested would continue to exist - unless he
changed his mind about that. And so species
didn't need to be protected from destructive
exploitation. God was protecting them.
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
... after the New Jerusalem appears, the people left alive will live
forever and breed copiously, filling the earth forever and ever.
Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
I believe I've heard that Christians believed
for a long time - along with a "young earth"
and creationism - that species extinction
didn't, wouldn't happen. That whatever God had
crested would continue to exist - unless he
changed his mind about that. And so species
didn't need to be protected from destructive
exploitation. God was protecting them.
I strongly suspect God is pretty pissed about what we did to His
creatures.
In article <[email protected]>,
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
... after the New Jerusalem appears, the people left alive will live >>forever and breed copiously, filling the earth forever and ever.
Though that's an interesting megastructure, according to Revelation,
a cube approximately the size of Alaska on each side.
One wonders about gravitational effects ...
In article <100r948$bvlu$[email protected]>,
Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
This is after the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth. Who can
say what their physics may look like?
<snippo -- if DVDs are obsolete, why to BD players play them?>
On 5/25/25 08:54, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo -- if DVDs are obsolete, why to BD players play them?>
Because we have lots of DVDs whcih we like to watch when we
have the time.
That is apart from the DVDs written from ISO files whixh we have
downloaded an written in the past to CDs and to DVDs of various FOSS >operating systems. Using the Flash Drives to keep these is another
matter entirely.
But if I take it into my head to watch "Yawara A fashionable Judo girl"
the DVD is waiting as others.
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote or quoted:
This is after the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth. Who can
say what their physics may look like?
From a philosophy angle, miracles are possible, since all the
laws of nature come from stuff we have seen before and just
describe what happened back then. We can only guess those same
laws will hold up down the road, but we do not actually know for
sure. But for now, we have to stick with Occam's razor;
there is no real point in guessing about miracles happening later on.
Science laws are called "laws" because they describe the past,
not because they lay down rules for what has to happen next.
Still, so far, betting that the old laws keep working has
always paid off. Technically, the universe could just blink out
of existence at any moment. That would not really bother anyone.
On 25/05/2025 17:07, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 02:48:02 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
... after the New Jerusalem appears, the people left alive will live
forever and breed copiously, filling the earth forever and ever.
Though that's an interesting megastructure, according to Revelation,
a cube approximately the size of Alaska on each side.
One wonders about gravitational effects ...
This is after the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth. Who can
say what their physics may look like?
A more recent book (it has a reference that only makes sense if it was
written in the late 1930s) asserts that, when the New Jerusalem
appears, this means that Heaven and (the New) Earth are /joined/. This
was not by a premillenialist. I think he was an amillenialist (like
Augustine, apparently) but he could be a postmillenialst. He believed
every true Christian that ever has or ever will exist is currently in
Heaven with Jesus ruling the World right now. He interprets all the
nastiness as ongoing from the Resurrection, and encompassing /all/ of
science, technology, anything /not/ in (his) Chrstian tradition. So I
can see because cataract surgery is a part of God's wrathful
punishment of the world. According to him, anyway.
As I said, /lots/ of really weird ideas.
If you keep reading that stuff, you'll go blind. :-)
(What?)
Was he himself writing from Heaven - or from
New Jerusalem - or was he in different places
simultaneously? I'm sort of assuming that
this isn't the Antichrist writing, who may be
well informed but not authentically pious.
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world (universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote or quoted:
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
However, have you heard of the "etymological fallacy," where
someone wrongly argues that a word's current meaning must be
the same as its original or historical meaning, ignoring the
fact that language evolves over time?
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world
(universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
How do you know that what you are describing as a Universe
corrupted by Sin is real? You are living within the Xtian mythos.
Myth-OS is not a good place to start from whether Xtian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Norse. or other pagan mythos.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 15:36:00 -0400, William Hyde
<[email protected]> wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:on.
On 25 May 2025 17:09:01 GMT, [email protected] (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
=20
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote or quoted:
This is after the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth. Who can
say what their physics may look like?
From a philosophy angle, miracles are possible, since all the
laws of nature come from stuff we have seen before and just
describe what happened back then. We can only guess those same
laws will hold up down the road, but we do not actually know for
sure. But for now, we have to stick with Occam's razor;
there is no real point in guessing about miracles happening later =
Science laws are called "laws" because they describe the past,=20
not because they lay down rules for what has to happen next.
Still, so far, betting that the old laws keep working has
always paid off. Technically, the universe could just blink out
of existence at any moment. That would not really bother anyone.
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
That is certainly not the way the word is used by the religious people=20 >>I know.
I rather expect that the people down the road at the "Mountain of Fire=20 >>and Miracles Ministry" would also beg to differ.
So it is at the least an atheist/fundamentalist definition.
Or it was developed centuries before fundamentalism, as such, existed
and was adopted as traditional. Intellectuals, after all, existed from
long ago.=20
More assertions:
1. Jesus had something to say about those who sought "signs and
wonders". And it wasn't very nice.
Paul S Person wrote:
On 25 May 2025 17:09:01 GMT, [email protected] (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote or quoted:
This is after the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth. Who can
say what their physics may look like?
From a philosophy angle, miracles are possible, since all the
laws of nature come from stuff we have seen before and just
describe what happened back then. We can only guess those same
laws will hold up down the road, but we do not actually know for
sure. But for now, we have to stick with Occam's razor;
there is no real point in guessing about miracles happening later on.
Science laws are called "laws" because they describe the past,
not because they lay down rules for what has to happen next.
Still, so far, betting that the old laws keep working has
always paid off. Technically, the universe could just blink out
of existence at any moment. That would not really bother anyone.
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
That is certainly not the way the word is used by the religious people
I know.
I rather expect that the people down the road at the "Mountain of Fire
and Miracles Ministry" would also beg to differ.
So it is at the least an atheist/fundamentalist definition.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world
(universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
How do you know that what you are describing as a Universe
corrupted by Sin is real? You are living within the Xtian mythos.
Myth-OS is not a good place to start from whether Xtian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Norse. or other pagan mythos.
How do you know that a Universe /not/ corrupted by Sin is real?
The question cuts both ways. And "Myth-OS"es are everywhere.
And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or even
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
This is why attempts to change other people's minds by "citing facts"
does not generally work: what is going on is all too often actually an attempt to convert them from one religion to another.
And, BTW, my statement clearly supports the validity of Science. But
only for the Universe we are in.
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> writes:
More assertions:
1. Jesus had something to say about those who sought "signs and
wonders". And it wasn't very nice.
1) How do you know such a person actually existed?
2) How do you know that person, assuming he existed,
said anything about "signs and wonders"?
Don't point to the KJV - primary contemporaneous sources only.
On 27/05/2025 17:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, [email protected] (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
It seems to match the Catholic definition, and they are after all the
largest Christian denomination.
In article <whmZP.20802$[email protected]>,
Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> writes:
More assertions:
1. Jesus had something to say about those who sought "signs and
wonders". And it wasn't very nice.
1) How do you know such a person actually existed?
2) How do you know that person, assuming he existed,
said anything about "signs and wonders"?
The Gospels were some of the later books of the New Testament
written. Of those, John was clearly written after the other
three; among other things, it has more of the concept that
Christianity was becoming something separate from a sect
of Judaism, and it names the disciple who cut off the chief
priest's servant's ear -- quite probably because the others
were written while Peter was still alive; John was written
after Peter was safely dead.
The Rylands manuscript, a fragment of the Gospel of John,
is reliably dated about 120 AD.
Much earlier writings are the various letters by Paul and
others, clearly written before 70AD.
The standards for reliability of ancient documents are:
1) Number of copies of the documents
2) How well the copies agree with each other
3) How close in time the earliest copies are to the events.
By all of these standards, compared to the New Testmanent,
how do, say, the works of Tacitus, Cicero, Julius Caesar rate?
Not remotely close. The works collected in the New Testament
blow them all away by these tests of reliability.
There is, of course, a fourth standard, which is never stated
by determinedly secular academicans, but is followed rigidly:
"Except Bible, we throw it all out if it's Bible."
Don't point to the KJV - primary contemporaneous sources only.
This is utter nonsense. Nobody (except a few ... non
mainstream types ...) thinks the Bible originated with
the translators hired by King James. I'm talking about
the originals, written mostly in Koine Greek, one or two,
I think may be written in Aramaic.
On 5/27/25 09:13, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world
(universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
How do you know that what you are describing as a Universe
corrupted by Sin is real? You are living within the Xtian mythos.
Myth-OS is not a good place to start from whether Xtian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Norse. or other pagan mythos.
How do you know that a Universe /not/ corrupted by Sin is real?
Because of the prevalence of death and change.
The standard interpretation is that prior ot the "original sin" of our
mythic parents they were immortal but with sin came death. However
death is universal for complex organisms as shown by countless fossils. >Therefore the myth and its standard interpretation are flawed at best
and likely wrong. Many deaths before homo sapiens evolved. And much
more time passed than allowed for in the standard interpretation of
the various scriptures apart from the Hindu which are very religiously >focused on battles of gods, their avatars and demi-gods in flying chariots. >over very long periods of time.
Further homo sapiens sapiens evolved as shown by many fossils
and likely had its problems with large scale deaths which reduced our
genetic diversity. This may have been caused by plagues or perhaps
by catastrophic ocean rise when the various ice dams collapsed as
the previous Ice Age waned.
The question cuts both ways. And "Myth-OS"es are everywhere.
And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
i do not believe Atheism is a religion. Anti-religious bigotry is
over-blown.
Secular humanism is a philosophy not a religion. Some people are attempting >to create an atheistic church which will depend on the community of people >who are willing to identify as atheists which is problematic in many areas.
In case you had not heard atheists are persecuted far more than
Christians or most other religions.
Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or even
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
This is why attempts to change other people's minds by "citing facts"
does not generally work: what is going on is all too often actually an
attempt to convert them from one religion to another.
And, BTW, my statement clearly supports the validity of Science. But
only for the Universe we are in.
Well of course we have to specify the validity of science in this
Universe as presently we have no access except through the medium
of imagination. And that is the probably for the best in this world.
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> writes:
More assertions:
1. Jesus had something to say about those who sought "signs and
wonders". And it wasn't very nice.
1) How do you know such a person actually existed?
2) How do you know that person, assuming he existed,
said anything about "signs and wonders"?
Don't point to the KJV - primary contemporaneous sources only.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 04:27:51 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt ><[email protected]> wrote:
In article <whmZP.20802$[email protected]>,
Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> writes:
More assertions:
1. Jesus had something to say about those who sought "signs and >>>>wonders". And it wasn't very nice.
1) How do you know such a person actually existed?
2) How do you know that person, assuming he existed,
said anything about "signs and wonders"?
The Gospels were some of the later books of the New Testament
written. Of those, John was clearly written after the other
three; among other things, it has more of the concept that
Christianity was becoming something separate from a sect
of Judaism, and it names the disciple who cut off the chief
priest's servant's ear -- quite probably because the others
were written while Peter was still alive; John was written
after Peter was safely dead.
The Rylands manuscript, a fragment of the Gospel of John,
is reliably dated about 120 AD.
Much earlier writings are the various letters by Paul and
others, clearly written before 70AD.
The standards for reliability of ancient documents are:
1) Number of copies of the documents
2) How well the copies agree with each other
3) How close in time the earliest copies are to the events.
By all of these standards, compared to the New Testmanent,
how do, say, the works of Tacitus, Cicero, Julius Caesar rate?
Not remotely close. The works collected in the New Testament
blow them all away by these tests of reliability.
There is, of course, a fourth standard, which is never stated
by determinedly secular academicans, but is followed rigidly:
"Except Bible, we throw it all out if it's Bible."
Don't point to the KJV - primary contemporaneous sources only.
This is utter nonsense. Nobody (except a few ... non
mainstream types ...) thinks the Bible originated with
the translators hired by King James. I'm talking about
the originals, written mostly in Koine Greek, one or two,
I think may be written in Aramaic.
He knows this. He is a common garden-variety atheist, and nothing
anybody says will change his mind, for he will defend his deeply-held >religious beliefs to the bitter end. As will most if not all of us.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 09:48:38 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/27/25 09:13, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world >>>>> (universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
How do you know that what you are describing as a Universe
corrupted by Sin is real? You are living within the Xtian mythos.
Myth-OS is not a good place to start from whether Xtian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Norse. or other pagan mythos.
How do you know that a Universe /not/ corrupted by Sin is real?
Because of the prevalence of death and change.
The standard interpretation is that prior ot the "original sin" of our >> mythic parents they were immortal but with sin came death. However
death is universal for complex organisms as shown by countless fossils.
Therefore the myth and its standard interpretation are flawed at best
and likely wrong. Many deaths before homo sapiens evolved. And much
more time passed than allowed for in the standard interpretation of
the various scriptures apart from the Hindu which are very religiously
focused on battles of gods, their avatars and demi-gods in flying chariots. >> over very long periods of time.
Further homo sapiens sapiens evolved as shown by many fossils
and likely had its problems with large scale deaths which reduced our
genetic diversity. This may have been caused by plagues or perhaps
by catastrophic ocean rise when the various ice dams collapsed as
the previous Ice Age waned.
And how do you know that the "mythic parents" and their condition was
not quite quite real -- until they fell, and everything changed?
IOW, what makes you think that you are not describing a corrupted
Universe? Are you assuming that there must be continuity between the
original form and the corrupted form? On what basis?
The question cuts both ways. And "Myth-OS"es are everywhere.
And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
i do not believe Atheism is a religion. Anti-religious bigotry is
over-blown.
Secular humanism is a philosophy not a religion. Some people are attempting >> to create an atheistic church which will depend on the community of people >> who are willing to identify as atheists which is problematic in many areas. >> In case you had not heard atheists are persecuted far more than
Christians or most other religions.
Well, of course you don't. It is one of your deeply-held religious
beliefs. But reality is.
Persecuted for their religious beliefs. Lack of Freedom of Speech is a
bitch.
And you can't have Freedom of Speech without Freedom of Religious
Speech, as some Iranians a decade or so found out when they voiced disapproval of the government's policies. Those policies were the
Ayatollah's policies, and the Ayatollah's policies were Allah's
policies, so they were punished for blasphemy. Which, in Iran, is
quite severely punished.
Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or even
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
This is why attempts to change other people's minds by "citing facts"
does not generally work: what is going on is all too often actually an
attempt to convert them from one religion to another.
And, BTW, my statement clearly supports the validity of Science. But
only for the Universe we are in.
Well of course we have to specify the validity of science in this
Universe as presently we have no access except through the medium
of imagination. And that is the probably for the best in this world.
And yet above you presume to regard the description of the World
(Universe) as God created it as "myth". Without any reason at all
except that you can't fit it into your deeply-held religious beliefs.
(The point here is not whether or not it is "myth". The point here is
that saying it is so reflects your beliefs, not facts, and certainly
not science.)
On Tue, 27 May 2025 18:24:27 +0100, Graham <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 27/05/2025 17:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, [email protected] (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
It seems to match the Catholic definition, and they are after all the
largest Christian denomination.
They also have a special interest in making them as hard to find as
possible, to keep down the hucksters. And keep the number of new
Saints to a minimum.
But they also have a tendency to keep quiet about popular miracles
that they know are not (by the definition given above) lest they
"disturb the faith of the laity" -- which is to say, the unwashed
masses.
The standards for reliability of ancient documents are:
1) Number of copies of the documents
2) How well the copies agree with each other
3) How close in time the earliest copies are to the events.
By all of these standards, compared to the New Testmanent,
how do, say, the works of Tacitus, Cicero, Julius Caesar rate?
Not remotely close. The works collected in the New Testament
blow them all away by these tests of reliability.
This is utter nonsense. Nobody (except a few ... non
mainstream types ...) thinks the Bible originated with
the translators hired by King James. I'm talking about
the originals, written mostly in Koine Greek, one or two,
I think may be written in Aramaic.
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, [email protected] (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote or quoted:
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
However, have you heard of the "etymological fallacy," where
someone wrongly argues that a word's current meaning must be
the same as its original or historical meaning, ignoring the
fact that language evolves over time?
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world
(universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
How do you know that what you are describing as a Universe
corrupted by Sin is real? You are living within the Xtian mythos.
Myth-OS is not a good place to start from whether Xtian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Norse. or other pagan mythos.
How do you know that a Universe /not/ corrupted by Sin is real?
The question cuts both ways. And "Myth-OS"es are everywhere.
And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or even
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
This is why attempts to change other people's minds by "citing facts"
does not generally work: what is going on is all too often actually an attempt to convert them from one religion to another.
And, BTW, my statement clearly supports the validity of Science. But
only for the Universe we are in.
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, [email protected] (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event thatJust because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
ps! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
that the definition does not change the reality.
Mike Van Pelt <[email protected]> wrote:
Nobody (except a few ... non
mainstream types ...) thinks the Bible originated with
the translators hired by King James.
Nobody who actually knows about the Bible, but you would be shocked to
see how many people in the various Southern Protestant traditions believe >that the KJV is the only possible translation and that the translators of
the KJV were able to correct errors in the documents they were working
from, because they were sustained by God.
There is a dramatic difference between people trained at the Yale School
of Divinity and the people trained at Hooterville Bible College.
On 25/05/2025 03:52, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <100r948$bvlu$[email protected]>,
Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
I think that being seized and publicly burned
should meet a reasonable condition of "banned",
and that happened in the U.S. to Harry Potter.
As for the year 2025, watch this space.
Textbooks for anarchism, terrorism, and
trade unionism also are dangerous to be
seen with.
I strongly disagree that atheism, for example, is a religion, ...
On 29/05/2025 9:01 p.m., Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 25/05/2025 03:52, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <100r948$bvlu$[email protected]>,
Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
I think that being seized and publicly burned
should meet a reasonable condition of "banned",
No, it doesn't. Banning is not merely hating or destroying. It's an institutional act, by a government, church, school board or whatever, decreeing that the book may not be sold/printed/possessed or whatever,
by persons within that institution's jurisdiction.
and that happened in the U.S. to Harry Potter.
Couple of times in the US (within this century), and once in Poland,
judging by a quick search.
As for the year 2025, watch this space.
Textbooks for anarchism, terrorism, and
trade unionism also are dangerous to be
seen with.
Around where you live, you mean?
As for atheism and laws of nature, I see those
as two separate things.
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 18:24:27 +0100, Graham <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 27/05/2025 17:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, [email protected] (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
It seems to match the Catholic definition, and they are after all the
largest Christian denomination.
They also have a special interest in making them as hard to find as
possible, to keep down the hucksters. And keep the number of new
Saints to a minimum.
But they also have a tendency to keep quiet about popular miracles
that they know are not (by the definition given above) lest they
"disturb the faith of the laity" -- which is to say, the unwashed
masses.
As a matter of fact the 'three authentic miracles' to be performed
as a condition for Sainthood have been abolished,
from practical necessity and by popular demand.
The necessary production of fresh saints just couldn't be kept up,
On 2025-05-27 10:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, [email protected] (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote or quoted:
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
However, have you heard of the "etymological fallacy," where
someone wrongly argues that a word's current meaning must be
the same as its original or historical meaning, ignoring the
fact that language evolves over time?
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
Feel free to prove that what you consider to be reality is factual.
On 25/05/2025 03:52, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <100r948$bvlu$[email protected]>,
Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
I think that being seized and publicly burned
should meet a reasonable condition of "banned",
and that happened in the U.S. to Harry Potter.
As for the year 2025, watch this space.
Textbooks for anarchism, terrorism, and
trade unionism also are dangerous to be
seen with.
On 27/05/2025 18:05, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> writes:
[Miracles and laws of nature]
More assertions:
1. Jesus had something to say about those who sought "signs and
wonders". And it wasn't very nice.
1) How do you know such a person actually existed?
2) How do you know that person, assuming he existed,
said anything about "signs and wonders"?
Don't point to the KJV - primary contemporaneous sources only.
I've read the book (mostly not KJV). I don't know
what Paul thinks is "not nice" about "miracles",
but I do remember the Jesus character doing plenty
of miracles and specifically saying that the purpose
of this was to persuade people to accept his
religious teaching.
Reasonably, his treatment of medical conditions
up to "being dead several days" with miracles
also can be interpreted as motivated by sympathy
for sufferers, except that Jesus also says that
people suffered these medical conditions in the
first place so that he could do the miracles
on them.
As for atheism and laws of nature, I see those
as two separate things. I see atheism as neither
a belief nor disbelief, but a choice of not
worshipping gods. In this, a person shouldn't
have to decide whether for instance a mysterious
invisible entity exists, or whether the Roman
Emperor is a god (conventionally yes when dead)
but only whether to propitiate gods. And if
a person is forced by other people to worship
a god, then, unwillingly, they are worshipping.
Clearly this is considered to have value,
otherwise what is the purpose of making them
do it?
If you want atheism to be a belief, then it
can be a belief that it isn't necessary to
worship gods.
Scientific knowledge mostly relies on presuming
that material substance behaves according to
consistent principles, which are called laws
of nature. It is usually assumed that this is
intrinsic to the material substance and not
continually performed by God, although philsophers
have flirted with the contrary idea. Amongst
problems of everything being miraculous are that
God then is morally responsible for everything
that happens, and that you are supposing that
God didn't and couldn't or wouldn't create
anything that would persist of its own accord,
which looks like hardly creating things at all.
But as I say, it's been talked of.
Religious miracles usually are understood as
a god causing matter to behave other than as by
the natural laws. But this doesn't require
that matter doesn't contain and obey laws of
nature the rest of the time. And while it
suggests that the god should be worshipped,
that remains a choice. And what if several
competing gods offer miracles for your
consideration? And some of them could be
faking it. There are "magic" tricks with no
supernatural element.
Also, as Arthur C. Clarke revealed to us,
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic." So for instance,
some miracles could be performed with concealed
magnets. Especially if someone doesn't know
that magnets exist.
On 5/28/25 08:15, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 09:48:38 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/27/25 09:13, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world >>>>>> (universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is >>>>>> not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New >>>>>> Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new >>>>>> world (universe), freed from sin.
How do you know that what you are describing as a Universe
corrupted by Sin is real? You are living within the Xtian mythos.
Myth-OS is not a good place to start from whether Xtian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Norse. or other pagan mythos.
How do you know that a Universe /not/ corrupted by Sin is real?
Because of the prevalence of death and change.
The standard interpretation is that prior ot the "original sin" of our >>> mythic parents they were immortal but with sin came death. However
death is universal for complex organisms as shown by countless fossils.
Therefore the myth and its standard interpretation are flawed at best
and likely wrong. Many deaths before homo sapiens evolved. And much
more time passed than allowed for in the standard interpretation of
the various scriptures apart from the Hindu which are very religiously
focused on battles of gods, their avatars and demi-gods in flying chariots. >>> over very long periods of time.
Further homo sapiens sapiens evolved as shown by many fossils
and likely had its problems with large scale deaths which reduced our
genetic diversity. This may have been caused by plagues or perhaps
by catastrophic ocean rise when the various ice dams collapsed as
the previous Ice Age waned.
And how do you know that the "mythic parents" and their condition was
not quite quite real -- until they fell, and everything changed?
That is not the story told. They lived in ignorance in a garden and
tasted the
apple of the knowledge of good and evil. The apple tasted good so they >became
aware of the taste of good things and the un-named individual ate a >poisonous
something and died. Dying is evil and the body rots and stinks.
IOW, what makes you think that you are not describing a corrupted
Universe? Are you assuming that there must be continuity between the
original form and the corrupted form? On what basis?
Geology and fossils. Radioactivity used to date the various matter
The latest astronomical data from the extra-terrestial observational
devices usually
referred to as Telescopes which are able to look back in time before >humanity could have existed.
The question cuts both ways. And "Myth-OS"es are everywhere.
And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
i do not believe Atheism is a religion. Anti-religious bigotry is
over-blown.
Secular humanism is a philosophy not a religion. Some people are attempting
to create an atheistic church which will depend on the community of people >>> who are willing to identify as atheists which is problematic in many areas. >>> In case you had not heard atheists are persecuted far more than
Christians or most other religions.
Well, of course you don't. It is one of your deeply-held religious
beliefs. But reality is.
Reality is indeed.
Persecuted for their religious beliefs. Lack of Freedom of Speech is a
bitch.
And you can't have Freedom of Speech without Freedom of Religious
Speech, as some Iranians a decade or so found out when they voiced
disapproval of the government's policies. Those policies were the
Ayatollah's policies, and the Ayatollah's policies were Allah's
policies, so they were punished for blasphemy. Which, in Iran, is
quite severely punished.
Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or even
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
This is why attempts to change other people's minds by "citing facts"
does not generally work: what is going on is all too often actually an >>>> attempt to convert them from one religion to another.
And, BTW, my statement clearly supports the validity of Science. But
only for the Universe we are in.
Well of course we have to specify the validity of science in this
Universe as presently we have no access except through the medium
of imagination. And that is the probably for the best in this world.
And yet above you presume to regard the description of the World
(Universe) as God created it as "myth". Without any reason at all
except that you can't fit it into your deeply-held religious beliefs.
The authors of the scriptures referred to the heavens and the earth.
The heavens are not a place but a vast Universe full of billions of
stars and
galactic conglomerations But they did not know that at all so they told >stories
about everything they could not begin to understand. We still used some
of the names they coined to tell the stories for example we call the Galaxy >we live in the Milky Way and Galaxy is the same word for the stars they
could see at night stretching across the sky. If g-d had inspired them they >would have had more truth in the scriptures.
They were talking about a ceramist god who breathed the breath of life
into the
creation. The authors were enormously ignorant of nearly everything that
did not
contribute to the survival of human persons and the gross facts of >reproduction.
Well they had learned that women did not reproduce without intercourse with >men or gods(?).
They knew nothing of DNA nor of proper nutrition, vitamins, or the true >causes
of illness of all sorts. The prophets, some of them at least, likely >suffered from
very poor diets which can lead to hallucinatory experiences and paranoia.
Oh and by the way it has been speculated that DNA which is the basis of
life on this planet and likely else where as well first came together in >deposits
of clay. But it may have been an import from the previous generation
of stars and planets which died to make the Solar System including the >Earth.
--(The point here is not whether or not it is "myth". The point here is
that saying it is so reflects your beliefs, not facts, and certainly
not science.)
On 2025-05-27 10:13, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
I strongly disagree that atheism, for example, is a religion, ...
Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or even
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
Nor is it a philosophy.
I don't believe that the world is being run by an intelligent giant
purple octopus either, and you would be hard put to describe that as
either a religion or a philosophy.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 09:13:54 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <[email protected]> wrote:
<apologies for any confusion, this is normal for this sort of thing>
On 5/28/25 08:15, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 09:48:38 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/27/25 09:13, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
How do you know that a Universe /not/ corrupted by Sin is real?
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world >>>>>>> (universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is >>>>>>> not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New >>>>>>> Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new >>>>>>> world (universe), freed from sin.
How do you know that what you are describing as a Universe
corrupted by Sin is real? You are living within the Xtian mythos.
Myth-OS is not a good place to start from whether Xtian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Norse. or other pagan mythos. >>>>>
Because of the prevalence of death and change.
The standard interpretation is that prior ot the "original sin" of our >>>> mythic parents they were immortal but with sin came death. However
death is universal for complex organisms as shown by countless fossils. >>>> Therefore the myth and its standard interpretation are flawed at best
and likely wrong. Many deaths before homo sapiens evolved. And much
more time passed than allowed for in the standard interpretation of
the various scriptures apart from the Hindu which are very religiously >>>> focused on battles of gods, their avatars and demi-gods in flying chariots.
over very long periods of time.
Further homo sapiens sapiens evolved as shown by many fossils
and likely had its problems with large scale deaths which reduced our
genetic diversity. This may have been caused by plagues or perhaps
by catastrophic ocean rise when the various ice dams collapsed as
the previous Ice Age waned.
And how do you know that the "mythic parents" and their condition was
not quite quite real -- until they fell, and everything changed?
That is not the story told. They lived in ignorance in a garden and
tasted the
apple of the knowledge of good and evil. The apple tasted good so they
became
aware of the taste of good things and the un-named individual ate a
poisonous
something and died. Dying is evil and the body rots and stinks.
That is nonsense. Are you sure you have actually /read/ the story?
Hints:
-- no "apple" (just "fruit")
-- no indication how it tasted and, no, this isn't about how good
things taste
-- all the participants have names (which, like most Hebrew names, are
also common nouns)
-- nobody dies in the Garden (the people are expelled, the Snake loses
its legs)
You last bit is true enough.
Still, it's not as bad as some versions I have read.
IOW, what makes you think that you are not describing a corrupted
Universe? Are you assuming that there must be continuity between the
original form and the corrupted form? On what basis?
Geology and fossils. Radioactivity used to date the various matter
The latest astronomical data from the extra-terrestial observational
devices usually
referred to as Telescopes which are able to look back in time before
humanity could have existed.
All of which is compatible with a corrupted reality and assumes
continuity with the uncorrupted reality. This is your deeply-held
religious belief resurfacing. None of it is relevant.
The question cuts both ways. And "Myth-OS"es are everywhere.
And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
i do not believe Atheism is a religion. Anti-religious bigotry is
over-blown.
Secular humanism is a philosophy not a religion. Some people are attempting
to create an atheistic church which will depend on the community of people >>>> who are willing to identify as atheists which is problematic in many areas.
In case you had not heard atheists are persecuted far more than
Christians or most other religions.
Well, of course you don't. It is one of your deeply-held religious
beliefs. But reality is.
Reality is indeed.
Persecuted for their religious beliefs. Lack of Freedom of Speech is a
bitch.
And you can't have Freedom of Speech without Freedom of Religious
Speech, as some Iranians a decade or so found out when they voiced
disapproval of the government's policies. Those policies were the
Ayatollah's policies, and the Ayatollah's policies were Allah's
policies, so they were punished for blasphemy. Which, in Iran, is
quite severely punished.
Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or even
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
This is why attempts to change other people's minds by "citing facts" >>>>> does not generally work: what is going on is all too often actually an >>>>> attempt to convert them from one religion to another.
And, BTW, my statement clearly supports the validity of Science. But >>>>> only for the Universe we are in.
Well of course we have to specify the validity of science in this
Universe as presently we have no access except through the medium
of imagination. And that is the probably for the best in this world.
And yet above you presume to regard the description of the World
(Universe) as God created it as "myth". Without any reason at all
except that you can't fit it into your deeply-held religious beliefs.
The authors of the scriptures referred to the heavens and the earth.
The heavens are not a place but a vast Universe full of billions of
stars and
galactic conglomerations But they did not know that at all so they told
stories
about everything they could not begin to understand. We still used some
of the names they coined to tell the stories for example we call the Galaxy >> we live in the Milky Way and Galaxy is the same word for the stars they
could see at night stretching across the sky. If g-d had inspired them they >> would have had more truth in the scriptures.
Which is all very well, but I don't see you getting upset because
Ptolemy and Copernicus believed much the same thing.
Your last sentence involves so many assumptions that I am not going to
bother listing them. I will, however, point out that even God must communicate with people in language they understand if He wants to be understood.
You can't have it both ways: either they /could/ have understood how
things are per science (you are taking it for granted, for example,
that we are not living inside a computer simulation), in which case
God could have used that knowledge, or they did not, in which God's
desire to be understood shaped how He put things. But you can't have
them ignorant and then claim that God's having to take this into
account proves anything. Well, except patience and adaptability.
They were talking about a ceramist god who breathed the breath of life
into the
creation. The authors were enormously ignorant of nearly everything that
did not
contribute to the survival of human persons and the gross facts of
reproduction.
Well they had learned that women did not reproduce without intercourse with >> men or gods(?).
They knew nothing of DNA nor of proper nutrition, vitamins, or the true
causes
of illness of all sorts. The prophets, some of them at least, likely
suffered from
very poor diets which can lead to hallucinatory experiences and paranoia.
All of which merely reinforces the prior remarks. Except to add that
here you appear to have abandoned the idea the God wrote it and
attributing it to Man -- who is born enslaved to sin, lives enslaved
to sin, and dies enslaved to sin. You are beating up on your fellow
slaves here.
Oh and by the way it has been speculated that DNA which is the basis of
life on this planet and likely else where as well first came together in
deposits
of clay. But it may have been an import from the previous generation
of stars and planets which died to make the Solar System including the
Earth.
There are lots of speculations and no real evidence. I expect that
eventually an explanation correct for a corrupted reality will be
found. It may take a few centuries. But it doesn't matter: DNA in a
corrupted universe is also corrupted. And there is /no/ reason to
believe that a universe not corrupted by sin would have DNA in it.
We simply do not know and cannot know. And that is the point: science
is limited to the present corrupted reality. It can say nothing of any
other reality, before or after this one.
That you appear to be unable to grasp the point speaks to the grip
your religious beliefs have on you.
(The point here is not whether or not it is "myth". The point here is
that saying it is so reflects your beliefs, not facts, and certainly
not science.)
On 25/05/2025 03:52, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <100r948$bvlu$[email protected]>,
Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
I think that being seized and publicly burned
should meet a reasonable condition of "banned",
and that happened in the U.S. to Harry Potter.
As for the year 2025, watch this space.
Textbooks for anarchism, terrorism, and--
trade unionism also are dangerous to be
seen with.
Mike Van Pelt <[email protected]> wrote:
This is utter nonsense. Nobody (except a few ... non
mainstream types ...) thinks the Bible originated with
the translators hired by King James. I'm talking about
the originals, written mostly in Koine Greek, one or two,
I think may be written in Aramaic.
Nobody who actually knows about the Bible, but you would be shocked to
see how many people in the various Southern Protestant traditions believe >that the KJV is the only possible translation and that the translators of
the KJV were able to correct errors in the documents they were working
from, because they were sustained by God.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:04:20 +0200, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 18:24:27 +0100, Graham <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 27/05/2025 17:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, [email protected] (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
It seems to match the Catholic definition, and they are after all the >> >largest Christian denomination.
They also have a special interest in making them as hard to find as
possible, to keep down the hucksters. And keep the number of new
Saints to a minimum.
But they also have a tendency to keep quiet about popular miracles
that they know are not (by the definition given above) lest they
"disturb the faith of the laity" -- which is to say, the unwashed
masses.
As a matter of fact the 'three authentic miracles' to be performed
as a condition for Sainthood have been abolished,
from practical necessity and by popular demand.
The necessary production of fresh saints just couldn't be kept up,
Thanks for the update. I make no attempt to keep up with what they are
doing, so it takes something major, like an American Pope, to catch my
eye.
Mike Van Pelt <[email protected]> wrote:
The standards for reliability of ancient documents are:
1) Number of copies of the documents
2) How well the copies agree with each other
3) How close in time the earliest copies are to the events.
By all of these standards, compared to the New Testmanent,
how do, say, the works of Tacitus, Cicero, Julius Caesar rate?
Not remotely close. The works collected in the New Testament
blow them all away by these tests of reliability.
I think a better test of reliability is to know how well a
document agrees with other unrelated documents of the same
era. The NT is a mixed bag in this regard.
This is utter nonsense. Nobody (except a few ... non
mainstream types ...) thinks the Bible originated with
the translators hired by King James. I'm talking about
the originals, written mostly in Koine Greek, one or two,
I think may be written in Aramaic.
Nobody who actually knows about the Bible, but you would be shocked to
see how many people in the various Southern Protestant traditions believe that the KJV is the only possible translation and that the translators of
the KJV were able to correct errors in the documents they were working
from, because they were sustained by God.
There is a dramatic difference between people trained at the Yale School
of Divinity and the people trained at Hooterville Bible College.
--scott
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:04:20 +0200, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 18:24:27 +0100, Graham <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 27/05/2025 17:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, [email protected] (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make >>>>>> that the definition does not change the reality.
It seems to match the Catholic definition, and they are after all the >>>>> largest Christian denomination.
They also have a special interest in making them as hard to find as
possible, to keep down the hucksters. And keep the number of new
Saints to a minimum.
But they also have a tendency to keep quiet about popular miracles
that they know are not (by the definition given above) lest they
"disturb the faith of the laity" -- which is to say, the unwashed
masses.
As a matter of fact the 'three authentic miracles' to be performed
as a condition for Sainthood have been abolished,
from practical necessity and by popular demand.
The necessary production of fresh saints just couldn't be kept up,
Thanks for the update. I make no attempt to keep up with what they are
doing, so it takes something major, like an American Pope, to catch my
eye.
The case of John-Paul II is often cited as an example of the unseemly
haste of recent procedures, under popular demand. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatification_of_Pope_John_Paul_II>
It really is safer to do nothing for the first hundred years,
Scott Dorsey <[email protected]> wrote:
There is a dramatic difference between people trained at the Yale School
of Divinity and the people trained at Hooterville Bible College.
There's a pretty big gap between those two extremes. There are
plenty of "considerably more conservative than I am" churches
that prefer New American Standard, or ESV, or NASB, but aren't
dogmatic about which translation.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:13:48 -0600, lar3ryca <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-27 10:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, [email protected] (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote or quoted:
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
However, have you heard of the "etymological fallacy," where
someone wrongly argues that a word's current meaning must be
the same as its original or historical meaning, ignoring the
fact that language evolves over time?
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
Feel free to prove that what you consider to be reality is factual.
Prove /what/ is factual? Please be specific.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:21:14 -0600, lar3ryca <[email protected]>
wrote:
I don't believe that the world is being run by an intelligent
giant purple octopus either, and you would be hard put to describe
that as either a religion or a philosophy.
Nobody claims that it is. That's the problem with adopting a
negative proposition as the basis of life.
As a matter of fact the 'three authentic miracles' to be performed as
a condition for Sainthood have been abolished, from practical
necessity and by popular demand.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:21:14 -0600, lar3ryca <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-27 10:13, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
<here, I will try some snipping -- the reference was to a list of
religions that /do/ admit to being religions>
Feel free to disagree.And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
I strongly disagree that atheism, for example, is a religion, ...
Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all in the USA.
Not in the USA? Check your local laws.
Ah, so you don't believe that atheists are friends of wisdom.Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or evenNor is it a philosophy.
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
("Philosophy" is "friend (or lover) of wisdom").
But of course it is a philosophy. Theology was originally part of
philosophy, and "God doesn't exist" is a clearly theological
statement.
I don't believe that the world is being run by an intelligent giant
purple octopus either, and you would be hard put to describe that as
either a religion or a philosophy.
Nobody claims that it is. That's the problem with adopting a negative proposition as the basis of life.
On 29/05/2025 18:27, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:04:20 +0200, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 18:24:27 +0100, Graham <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 27/05/2025 17:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, [email protected] (Stefan Ram) >>>>>> wrote:
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that >>>>>>> appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to >>>>>>> be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make >>>>>> that the definition does not change the reality.
It seems to match the Catholic definition, and they are after all the
largest Christian denomination.
They also have a special interest in making them as hard to find as
possible, to keep down the hucksters. And keep the number of new
Saints to a minimum.
But they also have a tendency to keep quiet about popular miracles
that they know are not (by the definition given above) lest they
"disturb the faith of the laity" -- which is to say, the unwashed
masses.
As a matter of fact the 'three authentic miracles' to be performed
as a condition for Sainthood have been abolished,
from practical necessity and by popular demand.
The necessary production of fresh saints just couldn't be kept up,
Thanks for the update. I make no attempt to keep up with what they are
doing, so it takes something major, like an American Pope, to catch my
eye.
The case of John-Paul II is often cited as an example of the unseemly
haste of recent procedures, under popular demand. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatification_of_Pope_John_Paul_II>
It really is safer to do nothing for the first hundred years,
Or much much longer. Surely the RC church has more than enough saints already?
On 29/05/25 05:04, J. J. Lodder wrote:
As a matter of fact the 'three authentic miracles' to be performed as
a condition for Sainthood have been abolished, from practical
necessity and by popular demand.
I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised. The quality of the miracles
had become questionable.
An Australian saint was proclaimed not long ago. (I think she's the only Australian saint.) The required three miracles were three cases of
people with serious illnesses who prayed to her and were cured. In
making that judgement, the investigators ignored
- the very many who prayed to her and were not cured;
- the unknown number who didn't pray to her and were cured.
This is yet another case where a statistician should have been consulted.
On 2025-05-29 09:36, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:21:14 -0600, lar3ryca <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-27 10:13, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
<here, I will try some snipping -- the reference was to a list of
religions that /do/ admit to being religions>
Feel free to disagree.And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
I strongly disagree that atheism, for example, is a religion, ...
I do.
Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all in the USA.
Not in the USA? Check your local laws.
The laws of Canada guarantee freedom of religion, but that did not stop
me from getting severe corporal punishment because I refused to
participate in the morning 'service', consisting of a bible reading and
a bowing of the head while the teacher recited the lord's prayer.
Full details can be supplied on request, should you so desire.
On 2025-05-29 09:05, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:13:48 -0600, lar3ryca <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-27 10:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, [email protected] (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote or quoted:
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something >>>>>> worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
However, have you heard of the "etymological fallacy," where
someone wrongly argues that a word's current meaning must be
the same as its original or historical meaning, ignoring the
fact that language evolves over time?
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
Feel free to prove that what you consider to be reality is factual.
Prove /what/ is factual? Please be specific.
I already specified it. It's "what you consider to be reality".
And saying Reality is corrupted is a meaningless statement.
What Reality have you ever seen that is not corrupted, outside of
your imagination?
Reality is what it is and corruption is a doubtful term to apply
to the medium in which we take our temporary beings.
lar3ryca <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-29 09:36, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:21:14 -0600, lar3ryca <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-05-27 10:13, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
<here, I will try some snipping -- the reference was to a list of
religions that /do/ admit to being religions>
Feel free to disagree.And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
I strongly disagree that atheism, for example, is a religion, ...
I do.
Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all in the USA.
Not in the USA? Check your local laws.
The laws of Canada guarantee freedom of religion, but that did not stop
me from getting severe corporal punishment because I refused to
participate in the morning 'service', consisting of a bible reading and
a bowing of the head while the teacher recited the lord's prayer.
Full details can be supplied on request, should you so desire.
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
On 30/05/25 01:36, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:21:14 -0600, lar3ryca <[email protected]>
wrote:
I don't believe that the world is being run by an intelligent
giant purple octopus either, and you would be hard put to describe
that as either a religion or a philosophy.
Nobody claims that it is. That's the problem with adopting a
negative proposition as the basis of life.
If an atheist adopted "there are no gods" as the _basis_of_life_, that >perhaps could be called a religious position; but that would be a very
rare atheist. The more typical position "gods, in the unlikely event
that any exist, are irrelevant to me" is not a "basis of life" kind of >statement.
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that
I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
J. J. Lodder <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing. You don't get freedom to enjoy your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this. But of course many
of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to Holland to enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as well.
So they took themselves to America.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
J. J. Lodder <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing. You don't get freedom to
enjoy
your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this. But of course many
of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to
Holland to
enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want
religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as well.
This is a facet of history that gets lost.
A number of "repressed" denominations were not seeking toleration, but domination. I am not referring to any one group here - it might be the policy of one faction of religion X, but not of the rest.
At the end of the English Civil War, for example, the Presbyterians of
that time assumed that now *they* would be the established church in England. Cromwell convinced them otherwise.
J. J. Lodder <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing. You don't get freedom to enjoy your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this. But of course many
of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to Holland to enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as well.
So they took themselves to America.
[email protected] (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
J. J. Lodder <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing. You don't get freedom to enjoy >> your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this. But of course many
of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to Holland to >> enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want
religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as well.
So they took themselves to America.
Ahem, you are confusing the Pilgrims (1620) with the Puritans (1630).
They were two different groups of people (the Puritans being more
numerous and more affluent).
"Freedom from religion" is a dogma of one or another of the religions
that deny their own nature.
"Freedom from forced participation" is a valid concern, but why limit
it to religion? Why not include, say, pep rallies?
anybody says will change his mind, for he will defend his deeply-held
religious beliefs to the bitter end. As will most if not all of us.
Nonsense.
I have no deeply held beliefs, religious or otherwise.
Your flawed theory that the lack of belief in the supernatural
is "religious" is complete nonsense and a typical response from
a rabid believer.
But I have a simpler definition: Any religion that denies it's own
nature.
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
This reminded me of a similar exchange in 2019:
Used to actually /identify/ religions when we see them.
All religions. Not just those (some) atheists are willing to recognize.
On 30/05/2025 17:05, Paul S Person wrote:
"Freedom from religion" is a dogma of one or another of the
religions
that deny their own nature.
I don't really understand that, but I think it's freedom _of_
religion, in the Constitution. However, at least to some extent,
one implies the other.
Take the Supreme Court decision on abortion as an example.
Perhaps those judges with strong religious views in the subject
should have recused themselves.
The rest of us * now have to comply with their religion. Is that
not forced participation?
IMO you can't have freedom of religion without freedom from
religion.
On 31/05/2025 02:06, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 30/05/2025 17:05, Paul S Person wrote:
"Freedom from religion" is a dogma of one or another of the religions
that deny their own nature.
I don't really understand that, but I think it's freedom _of_
religion, in the Constitution. However, at least to some extent, one
implies the other.
Take the Supreme Court decision on abortion as an example. Perhaps
those judges with strong religious views in the subject should have
recused themselves.
That's a door we probably didn't want opened, but maybe if we tread lightly...?
The rest of us * now have to comply with their religion. Is that not
forced participation?
Is it your contention that all atheists are in favour of abortion?
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <[email protected]>snip
wrote:
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more commonly, excludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
On 31/05/2025 02:43, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 31/05/2025 02:06, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 30/05/2025 17:05, Paul S Person wrote:
"Freedom from religion" is a dogma of one or another of the
religions
that deny their own nature.
I don't really understand that, but I think it's freedom _of_
religion, in the Constitution. However, at least to some
extent, one implies the other.
Take the Supreme Court decision on abortion as an example.
Perhaps those judges with strong religious views in the
subject should have recused themselves.
That's a door we probably didn't want opened, but maybe if we
tread lightly...?
The rest of us * now have to comply with their religion. Is
that not forced participation?
Is it your contention that all atheists are in favour of abortion?
Goodness no, not at all.
As an aside, I don't consider myself an atheist, more an agnostic
- I don't believe in any of the established religions, afaict
they are mostly about controlling people rather than a search for
truth.
When I was younger I thought even being an agnostic rather than
an atheist was crapping out
- but as I get older I wonder, why is
there something - cogito ergo sum - rather than nothing?
As a physicist (I am not mainly a physicist, but) I can see that
the universe could arise from nothing - but then why should
physics, or mathematics, or philosophy, be that way?
Or is it just turtles all the way down? :)
Anywhoo, as to abortion. In the 60's it became a practical method
of birth control, though it had been possible earlier.
An ex-girlfriend had an abortion - not mine - and she still
thinks about it from time to time, 50 years later. At the time it
was probably the right decision for her. People die, people kill
each other - but is a fetus a people? I don't know.
What I do know is that many or most women want the freedom to
have an abortion, whether it is the right decision or not. And
while the freedoms in the Constitution do not specifically
mention that, the fact that there are supposed to be those sorts
of freedoms is .. important.
So if a Supreme Court Judge, while smoking a cigar and drinking
brandy at a dinner afterwards (it happened), says he decided
against that freedom on the basis of his religious belief that a
fetus is a people, I can't agree with that.
If he believes that for other reasons, ok, But for religious
reasons, no. That is forcing his religious beliefs on everyone else.
On 30/05/2025 19:07, William Hyde wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
J. J. Lodder <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing. You don't get freedom to
enjoy
your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this. But of course many >> of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to
Holland to
enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want
religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as well.
This is a facet of history that gets lost.
A number of "repressed" denominations were not seeking toleration, but domination. I am not referring to any one group here - it might be the policy of one faction of religion X, but not of the rest.
I suppose it is understandable.
With the exception of The Netherlands, it was the usual practice for the Monarch or government to define the particular form of religion to be followed in their lands.
They just wanted a place where they would be top dog.
At the end of the English Civil War, for example, the Presbyterians of
that time assumed that now *they* would be the established church in England. Cromwell convinced them otherwise.
right decision for her. People die, people kill each other - but is a
fetus a people? I don't know.
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that
I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
Immanuel Kant addressed this subject very effectively nearly two centuries ago, and his work is worth looking up. Schopenhauer expanded on it as
well. It's not worth rehashing on Usenet.
--scott
On 30/05/2025 at 16:53, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that
I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
Immanuel Kant addressed this subject very effectively nearly two
centuries
ago, and his work is worth looking up. Schopenhauer expanded on it as
well. It's not worth rehashing on Usenet.
--scott
But he was a real pissant, and very rarely stable.
Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 30/05/2025 19:07, William Hyde wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
J. J. Lodder <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing. You don't get freedom
to enjoy
your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this. But of course
many
of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to
Holland to
enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want
religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as
well.
This is a facet of history that gets lost.
A number of "repressed" denominations were not seeking toleration,
but domination. I am not referring to any one group here - it might
be the policy of one faction of religion X, but not of the rest.
I suppose it is understandable.
With the exception of The Netherlands, it was the usual practice for
the Monarch or government to define the particular form of religion to
be followed in their lands.
This was even defined as a principle "Cuius regio, eius religio" meaning "whose state, whose religion". Though as originally formulated it
applied only in Germany, and only to Lutheran or Catholic rulers,
Calvinists need not apply.
This was actually an improvement on the previous rule, which was that everyone had to accept the religion of the emperor. Under the new
principle the official religion and that of the ruler were more likely
to be the same.
Things got difficult in a state like Brandenburg, where the population
was Lutheran but the ruler Calvinist.
They just wanted a place where they would be top dog.
They already had one: Scotland.
The parliamentary army was largely Quakers and other independent
protestants. It should have been obvious that they were not fighting to establish yet another religion over their own. Even Presbyterian
elders would have been smart enough to see this, were they not blinded
by their faith and/or desire for power.
William Hyde
On 31/05/25 21:37, Chris Elvidge wrote:
On 30/05/2025 at 16:53, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that >>>> I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
Immanuel Kant addressed this subject very effectively nearly two
centuries
ago, and his work is worth looking up. Schopenhauer expanded on it as
well. It's not worth rehashing on Usenet.
--scott
But he was a real pissant, and very rarely stable.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that
I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
Immanuel Kant addressed this subject very effectively nearly two centuries >ago, and his work is worth looking up. Schopenhauer expanded on it as
well. It's not worth rehashing on Usenet.
Yes, always the same with religions.
When a minority the demand tolerance,
once on top they oppress,
J. J. Lodder <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing. You don't get freedom to enjoy >your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this. But of course many
of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to Holland to >enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want >religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as well.
So they took themselves to America.
On 31/05/25 04:11, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <[email protected]>snip
wrote:
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more commonly,
excludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
What is this "one God" nonsense? Are you of Jewish Faith?
Didn't we nail a third of the three Christian Gods to a tree?
Or am I confusing that with some Speculative written fantasy Fiction
that I have read? Back on topic. (Might have been the authorised KVJ
version or perhaps a bootleg by Kilgore Trout.)
On 30/05/2025 17:05, Paul S Person wrote:
"Freedom from religion" is a dogma of one or another of the religions
that deny their own nature.
I don't really understand that, but I think it's freedom _of_ religion,
in the Constitution. However, at least to some extent, one implies the >other.
Take the Supreme Court decision on abortion as an example. Perhaps those >judges with strong religious views in the subject should have recused >themselves.
The rest of us * now have to comply with their religion. Is that not
forced participation?
IMO you can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.
"Freedom from forced participation" is a valid concern, but why limit
it to religion? Why not include, say, pep rallies?
* the rest of you, actually, as thank Goodness, I am not an American.
But I have friends who are.
On 31/05/25 14:31, Titus G wrote:
This reminded me of a similar exchange in 2019:
And again.
On 14/04/20 4:25 am, Paul S Person wrote:
snip
Used to actually /identify/ religions when we see them.
Is your real name Paul S People?
All religions. Not just those (some) atheists are willing to recognize.
The user of asynchronous communication as practised here does NOT make
the affirmative statement that synchronous communication does not exist.
An asexual person does NOT make the affirmative statement that sex does
not exist.
A Corvid-19 asymptomatic person does NOT make the affirmative statement
that a Corvid-19 symptom does not exist.
[But Paul S Person states:]
An atheist is an anti-religious fanatic.
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
OK Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't religion involve the supernatural?
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Neither of which involve anything supernatural.
If Communism is a religion then so is Capitalism.
I read Kant when I read the collection known as /The Great Books of
the Western World/. It took a while, but eventually it became clear:
he was propping up Western culture on a secular basis. This is why he
ends up with the same-old same-old ethics.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:10:52 +1200, Titus G <[email protected]> wrote:
On 31/05/25 04:11, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <[email protected]>snip
wrote:
=20
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more commonly,
excludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
=20
What is this "one God" nonsense? Are you of Jewish Faith?
Didn't we nail a third of the three Christian Gods to a tree?
Or am I confusing that with some Speculative written fantasy Fiction
that I have read? Back on topic. (Might have been the authorised KVJ >>version or perhaps a bootleg by Kilgore Trout.)
=46unny as that is, just in case, let me remind you that it is "One God
in Three Persons".
In article <101dplj$q5st$[email protected]>, Titus G <[email protected]> wrote:
On 29/05/25 03:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
OK Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't religion involve the supernatural?
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Neither of which involve anything supernatural.
If Communism is a religion then so is Capitalism.
I have no hand in this fight, but if "the invisible hand of the market"
isn't supernatural,. I do0n't know what is.
--scott
Robert Woodward <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
J. J. Lodder <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing. You don't get freedom to enjoy
your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this. But of course many >> of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to Holland to
enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want
religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as well. >>
So they took themselves to America.
Ahem, you are confusing the Pilgrims (1620) with the Puritans (1630).
They were two different groups of people (the Puritans being more
numerous and more affluent).
You are correct; that was a brain fart.
--scott
On 31/05/2025 04:07, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 31/05/2025 02:43, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 31/05/2025 02:06, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 30/05/2025 17:05, Paul S Person wrote:
"Freedom from religion" is a dogma of one or another of the religions >>>>> that deny their own nature.
I don't really understand that, but I think it's freedom _of_
religion, in the Constitution. However, at least to some extent,
one implies the other.
Take the Supreme Court decision on abortion as an example. Perhaps
those judges with strong religious views in the subject should have
recused themselves.
That's a door we probably didn't want opened, but maybe if we tread
lightly...?
The rest of us * now have to comply with their religion. Is that not
forced participation?
Is it your contention that all atheists are in favour of abortion?
Goodness no, not at all.
You see the point, of course. If an atheist can decide for non-religious reasons that abortion is immoral, so can a religious person.
If you were to appoint me to the US Supreme Court (which would be a
supremely bad idea for all kinds of reasons), I would cast my vote
against the taking of life, not because I'm a Christian (although I am)
but because I'm an Englishman, and we English root for the underdog.
On one side a tiny unborn child trying to mind her own business as she prepares to make her way in the world, and on the other side not only a hostile mother but an entire hospital full of scary kit employed by
giant doctors to hunt her down and fling her into the trash bin. No
fair! If you don't want a child, don't start one. And if Christianity mandated abortion, I would oppose it on this very ground.
As an aside, I don't consider myself an atheist, more an agnostic - I
don't believe in any of the established religions, afaict they are
mostly about controlling people rather than a search for truth.
I think that's true, but I also think that a lot of truth has been found along the way. Religions have turned up a lot of nonsense over the
millennia, but plenty of diamonds, too.
When I was younger I thought even being an agnostic rather than an
atheist was crapping out
My brother tells me that he's really an atheist, but he describes
himself as an agnostic because he doesn't want to hurt God's feelings.
- but as I get older I wonder, why is there something - cogito ergo
sum - rather than nothing?
We're all getting closer to finding out.
As a physicist (I am not mainly a physicist, but) I can see that the
universe could arise from nothing - but then why should physics, or
mathematics, or philosophy, be that way?
Or is it just turtles all the way down? :)
Or do those same turtles swim in an endless cloud of unknowing?
Anywhoo, as to abortion. In the 60's it became a practical method of
birth control, though it had been possible earlier.
An ex-girlfriend had an abortion - not mine - and she still thinks
about it from time to time, 50 years later. At the time it was
probably the right decision for her. People die, people kill each
other - but is a fetus a people? I don't know.
I would reason that we really ought to find out before we start killing
them.
What I do know is that many or most women want the freedom to have an
abortion, whether it is the right decision or not. And while the
freedoms in the Constitution do not specifically mention that, the
fact that there are supposed to be those sorts of freedoms is ..
important.
Quoth the Constitution:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Due process of law includes the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. The Constitution does not allow states to deny people
the protection of the law by letting them be killed without first being convicted of a capital crime.
So if a Supreme Court Judge, while smoking a cigar and drinking brandy
at a dinner afterwards (it happened), says he decided against that
freedom on the basis of his religious belief that a fetus is a people,
I can't agree with that.
Agreed.
If he believes that for other reasons, ok, But for religious reasons,
no. That is forcing his religious beliefs on everyone else.
Also agreed. But do we outlaw killing, say, a 6-year-old for religious reasons, or because to legalize it would make us evil bastards? After
we've answered that, we can talk about where to draw the evil bastard line.
On 31/05/25 04:11, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <[email protected]>snip
wrote:
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more commonly,
excludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
What is this "one God" nonsense? Are you of Jewish Faith?
Didn't we nail a third of the three Christian Gods to a tree?
Or am I confusing that with some Speculative written fantasy Fiction
that I have read? Back on topic. (Might have been the authorised KVJ
version or perhaps a bootleg by Kilgore Trout.)
In article <101dplj$q5st$[email protected]>, Titus G <[email protected]> wrote:
On 29/05/25 03:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
OK Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't religion involve the supernatural?
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Neither of which involve anything supernatural.
If Communism is a religion then so is Capitalism.
I have no hand in this fight, but if "the invisible hand of the market"
isn't supernatural,. I do0n't know what is.
--scott
It is emergent behavior. If you are going to call that supernatural,
then chemistry is supernatural also.
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
I read Kant when I read the collection known as /The Great Books of
the Western World/. It took a while, but eventually it became clear:
he was propping up Western culture on a secular basis. This is why he
ends up with the same-old same-old ethics.
I don't think that is bad if they are good ethics.
But I was not talking about his discussion of ethics, but his discussion
of reality vs. perception and the phenomenal vs. nouminal world.
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 10:14:59 +0200, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
<snippo>
Yes, always the same with religions.
When a minority the demand tolerance,
once on top they oppress,
Didn't the Bolsheviks follow the same pattern?
I don't think Lenin ever demanded mere toleration. He did a pretty good
job of oppressing even when he was in the minority.
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> writes:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:10:52 +1200, Titus G <[email protected]> wrote:
On 31/05/25 04:11, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <[email protected]>snip
wrote:
=20
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more commonly, >>>> excludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
=20
What is this "one God" nonsense? Are you of Jewish Faith?
Didn't we nail a third of the three Christian Gods to a tree?
Or am I confusing that with some Speculative written fantasy Fiction
that I have read? Back on topic. (Might have been the authorised KVJ >>>version or perhaps a bootleg by Kilgore Trout.)
=46unny as that is, just in case, let me remind you that it is "One God
in Three Persons".
Even in christianity, the question has been are the three one,
or is the one three? [Pointlessly silly] wars were fought over that
simple question.
Of course, that's assuming one accepts the dogma.
Didn't the Bolsheviks follow the same pattern?
I don't think Lenin ever demanded mere toleration. He did a pretty good
job of oppressing even when he was in the minority.
On 29/05/25 05:04, J. J. Lodder wrote:
As a matter of fact the 'three authentic miracles' to be performed as
a condition for Sainthood have been abolished, from practical
necessity and by popular demand.
I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised. The quality of the miracles
had become questionable.
An Australian saint was proclaimed not long ago. (I think she's the only Australian saint.) The required three miracles were three cases of
people with serious illnesses who prayed to her and were cured. In
making that judgement, the investigators ignored
- the very many who prayed to her and were not cured;
- the unknown number who didn't pray to her and were cured.
This is yet another case where a statistician should have been consulted.
On 29/05/2025 12:15, Ross Clark wrote:
On 29/05/2025 9:01 p.m., Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 25/05/2025 03:52, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <100r948$bvlu$[email protected]>,
Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
I think that being seized and publicly burned
should meet a reasonable condition of "banned",
No, it doesn't. Banning is not merely hating or destroying. It's an
institutional act, by a government, church, school board or whatever,
decreeing that the book may not be sold/printed/possessed or whatever,
by persons within that institution's jurisdiction.
and that happened in the U.S. to Harry Potter.
Couple of times in the US (within this century), and once in Poland,
judging by a quick search.
As for the year 2025, watch this space.
Textbooks for anarchism, terrorism, and
trade unionism also are dangerous to be
seen with.
Around where you live, you mean?
People are put in jail for possessing some
of these, yeah.
You can't actually "roll back the clock", though.
Stephen Hawking proposed considering an apparent
beginning of time in the sense that at the Earth's
South Pole, there is a beginning of land. A place
which is so south, that everywhere else is north
of it. But if you go there, you don't see a
singularity. You just see land all around the
South Pole. You can walk back and forth across it.
It's only our standard of measurement that implies
that a singularity exists there.
I have trouble conceiving a situation in which
that question has any answer - if we rule out
saying "God made everything" and not allowing
the question to include "why does God exist?"
As reasonably, "nothing" also means "no God".
Consciousness is the special thing that important
entities possess (humans, the government) and others
do not (animals, plants, artificial intelligence,
immigrants). This special thing has not been shown
to exist, in my opinion.
"How do we resolve the measurement problem in quantum physics?" -This may be only a mental problem, as physics seems
another head-scratcher for today's physicists.
to work, whether you think that you understand it,
or not.
What happens inside a black hole, stays inside a
black hole! So don't worry about it!
The physicists seem to have settled how the earth,
sun, moon, and stars came to be, anyway. That is
all long after the big bang. Thus is the book of
Genesis disposed of.
That is really not the impression I have of him. He was a man of
incredible intellectual arrogance, utterly convinced that he was right,
and that he alone knew what was to be done and that no sacrifice was too >costly to eliminate what he considered to be the ultimate evil.
Democracy was fine provided people voted the right way - consider the
example of Georgia I gave an another post.
One one occasion in the civil war Stalin had executed many "opponents"
in a given area and thought he had done enough. He said as much to
Lenin who told him to keep on killing. Unlike Stalin, Lenin took no
pleasure in killing, but he could be more ruthless.
On 30/05/2025 16:37, Paul S Person wrote:
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that
I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
If you consider it to be reality then you
presumably regard it as provable.
By the way - in that bible - there's a bit
about God creating things, including plants
on land, animals in the waters - but no plants
to live in water. They seem to be around now,
!though. Just a point to consider. Did I
overlook that, or did God? Did he fix it later
when no one was watching?
I thought Quakers were/are notoriously non-violent.
begin fnord
Chris Elvidge <[email protected]> writes:
I thought Quakers were/are notoriously non-violent.
Nixon was a Quaker.
There are singularities that are just "coordinate singularities".
All that means is our coordinate system falls apart at a certain spot,
but it does not necessarily mean the physics breaks down there. You
can just switch to a different coordinate system and clear that up.
With a black hole, the general consensus is that any singularity at
the horizon is just a coordinate singularity, but the singularity
in the center of the black hole is a real physical singularity.
As far as I know, people say the Big Bang is also a real singularity,
not just something that comes from the coordinate system.
In article <[email protected]>,
Steve Coltrin <[email protected]> wrote:
begin fnord
Chris Elvidge <[email protected]> writes:
I thought Quakers were/are notoriously non-violent.
Nixon was a Quaker.
ObSF: The Quakers in Still Forms on Foxfield feel the need to distance themselves from RMN, despite being on a different planet, more than a
century later.
freedom on the basis of his religious belief that a fetus is a people, I can't agree with that.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 04:07:26 +0100
Peter Fairbrother <[email protected]> wrote:
freedom on the basis of his religious belief that a fetus is a people, I
can't agree with that.
ObAUE: 'a person'
'people' to me, implies several.
begin fnord
Chris Elvidge <[email protected]> writes:
I thought Quakers were/are notoriously non-violent.
Nixon was a Quaker.
In article <101dplj$q5st$[email protected]>, Titus G <[email protected]> wrote:
On 29/05/25 03:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
OK Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't religion involve the supernatural?
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Neither of which involve anything supernatural.
If Communism is a religion then so is Capitalism.
I have no hand in this fight, but if "the invisible hand of the market"
isn't supernatural,. I do0n't know what is.
--scott
On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:10:52 +1200, Titus G <[email protected]> wrote:
On 31/05/25 04:11, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <[email protected]>snip
wrote:
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more commonly,
excludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
What is this "one God" nonsense? Are you of Jewish Faith?
Didn't we nail a third of the three Christian Gods to a tree?
Or am I confusing that with some Speculative written fantasy Fiction
that I have read? Back on topic. (Might have been the authorised KVJ
version or perhaps a bootleg by Kilgore Trout.)
Funny as that is, just in case, let me remind you that it is "One God
in Three Persons".
Note: there are many heresies involved with this topic. You may have
touched on Tritheism in your third statement, but it is too incoherent
to be sure. (1/3 of 1 of 3 would be 1/9 of the whole.)
Steve Coltrin <[email protected]> wrote:
begin fnord
Chris Elvidge <[email protected]> writes:
I thought Quakers were/are notoriously non-violent.
Nixon was a Quaker.
And, as much evil as Nixon was involved in, he DID end American involvement >in the Vietnam War. Likely in part due to Quaker influences, although by >that time it was getting pretty hard to defend involvement.
On 02/06/2025 16:15, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 03:16:02 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 16:37, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo nonsense question I am responding to, and what led up to it>
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that >>>> I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
If you consider it to be reality then you
presumably regard it as provable.
I think you are missing the thread here. Or maybe I am.
The question appears to be about "reality" as such. Not "the reality
of this" or "the reality of that" or even "the existence of reality",
but just "reality" -- and, even then, only what I consider to be
reality.
As I said, all that appears to be provable is that what I consider to
be reality really is what I consider to be reality. Since I make no
statement that it actually /is/ reality, what else is there to prove?
<snip-a-bit>
By the way - in that bible - there's a bit
about God creating things, including plants
on land, animals in the waters - but no plants
to live in water. They seem to be around now,
!though. Just a point to consider. Did I
overlook that, or did God? Did he fix it later
when no one was watching?
This is where one of Robert Graves suggestions comes in handy:
that the various sets of things created were assigned by the pagans to
various deities, and the account in Genesis is intended to say "no,
God, the God of Israel, did that".
In that case, the lack of aquatic vegetation mignt be taken to mean
that there was no pagan deity responsible for having created it.
Alternately, we could discuss the problems with scribes hand-copying
manuscripts -- for example, drop-outs.
There are (IIRC) two versions of this account (one in Psalms, one in
Proverbs -- IIRC) but, IIRC, they end early in the process (Earth,
Sun, Moon, Stars) and say nothing about days. This raises the
possibility of later additions in Genesis 1 to the original account.
Do you mean Psalm 104? That has a bit that
I had lost track of - that God is responsible
for stopping the sea tide from flooding the
land - again - and keeping it where it belongs.
On biblical truth, I'll just point out that
we do see the waters of the sea flooding over
land from time to time.
At a funeral service for a dear friend under Quaker auspices I discovered
that Quakers talk too much. Quakers are non-violent unless the provocation >such as freeing slaves or keeping their property in very important and no >president should be elected who holds fast to the principles of >non-violence.
Nearly all governments use violence as the ultimate way to enforce their >rules.
To the extent that they use violence in accordance with the laws of that >government and society they are either a nation rules by laws or a nation >under a Fascist rule.
On 02/06/2025 19:04, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 04:07:26 +0100
Peter Fairbrother <[email protected]> wrote:
freedom on the basis of his religious belief that a fetus is a people, I >>> can't agree with that.
ObAUE: 'a person'
'people' to me, implies several.
Twins, presumably.
On 02/06/2025 06:56, Ross Clark wrote:
On 2/06/2025 3:08 p.m., Robert Carnegie wrote:
People are put in jail for possessing some
of these, yeah.
Could you safely give an example?
Well, this sort of thing, unspecifically - in England. ><https://www.westmidlands.police.uk/news/west-midlands/news/news/2025/january/birmingham-teen-jailed-for-terrorism-offences/>
Shaan Farooq was done for "possessing terrorism
material" and "intentionally distributing terrorism
material", which refers to "extremist material and
images which supported the banned organisation
Islamic State", in digital document form.
Six months (sentence) for possession - you might
get out sooner, but probably not if you tell anyone
what you're there for? It's confusing.
On 1/06/25 03:18, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article <101dplj$q5st$[email protected]>, Titus G <[email protected]> wrote:
On 29/05/25 03:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
OK Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't religion involve the supernatural?
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Neither of which involve anything supernatural.
If Communism is a religion then so is Capitalism.
I have no hand in this fight, but if "the invisible hand of the market"
isn't supernatural,. I do0n't know what is.
--scott
Was there supposed to be a smiling emoji at the end there?
The invisible hand of the market is invisible because it is inside the
minds of buyers and sellers, their idea of the price of goods or
services at which they are prepared to buy or sell.
On 17/02/25 07:57, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Peter Moylan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/02/25 08:21, D wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Excellent! Will read again.
I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had
lost its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read
once" book.
Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.
I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been >disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".
More than just species, an ecosystem.
Massive use by the USA of 'Agent Orange' and other defoliants in Vietnam
is another good candidate for an attempt at ecocide,
Thanks, I didn't know that. But I was thinking of
what Jan called ecocide, killing wild species.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 10:16:08 +1100, Peter Moylan <[email protected]>
wrote:
I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been >>disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".
Catch-22 is one of the few books I've read the book and seen the
movie. Unlike *M*A*S*H* which came out around the same time, Catch-22
was a far better book than movie. In *M*A*S*H* my favorite line was
"Get that dirty old man out of my operating" "OK but if the
congressman's son gets an infection because you came in here you'll
never hear the end of it..." and of course the shower scene with the
brass band as the curtain was pulled down (which both the movie and TV
show did - the movie version was better)
In general many great books have made horrible movies - I still can't
believe that in the last Lord of the Rings movie they actually shot
the Death of Saruman scene but left it on the cutting room floor while >spending a whole 1/2 hour on the Grey Havens (which I thought was a
minor appendage to the book).
I'd love to see a Foundation flick but I have no idea how they'd film >Foundation and Empire effectively either the downfall of Bel Riose or
the flight across the galaxy and the climactic scene when the Darrells >realize their passenger was the Mule. And I'm pretty sure some of the
scenes in Second Foundation with Arkady Darrell and the Warlord of
Kalgan (who was basically a dirty old man) would have a tough time
getting rated particularly when he reveals he had lustful designs on
her which given she was 15 at the time was a huge no no especially
when it was written.
On 2025-06-02 23:43, Titus G wrote:
On 1/06/25 03:18, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article <101dplj$q5st$[email protected]>, Titus G <[email protected]> wrote:
On 29/05/25 03:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
OK Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't religion involve the supernatural?
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Neither of which involve anything supernatural.
If Communism is a religion then so is Capitalism.
I have no hand in this fight, but if "the invisible hand of the market"
isn't supernatural,. I do0n't know what is.
--scott
Was there supposed to be a smiling emoji at the end there?
The invisible hand of the market is invisible because it is inside the
minds of buyers and sellers, their idea of the price of goods or
services at which they are prepared to buy or sell.
We don't do emojis in AuE
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:16:11 -0600, lar3ryca <[email protected]> wrote:SNIP
On 2025-06-02 23:43, Titus G wrote:
On 1/06/25 03:18, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Was there supposed to be a smiling emoji at the end there?
The invisible hand of the market is invisible because it is inside the
minds of buyers and sellers, their idea of the price of goods or
services at which they are prepared to buy or sell.
We don't do emojis in AuE
Or humor, apparently.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:51:53 +0000, [email protected] >(jerryfriedman) wrote:Hey, at least they admit that it /was/ their territory.
Thanks, I didn't know that. But I was thinking of
what Jan called ecocide, killing wild species.
I get frustrated with people who say "the bears have been here a
minimum of 10000 years" - it's BEAR territory not HUMAN since I live
in a subdivision literally on the edge of the forest.
Now every home in our area was built in the 1970s which is well beyond
the lifetime of any living bear so while it may have been bear
territory once, it certainly hasn't been so during any bear's lifetime
- and my next door neighbor had an 8' section of his fence taken down
by a bear while I myself have had a yearling bear (we think) take out
two adjacent boards in our fence which we believe our dog who was in
the back yard managed to get out of our back yard onto our street -
which is a major bus route.
So yeah - I >DO< have "skin" in this game.--
(Aerial Google Maps image of my neighborhood available on request
<grin>)
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 20:59:19 +0100, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
More than just species, an ecosystem.
Massive use by the USA of 'Agent Orange' and other defoliants in Vietnam
is another good candidate for an attempt at ecocide,
The objective was to remove cover for guerillas. In WW1 they used
artillery over most of Belgium and much of Northern France to
"achieve" much the same result (that area was in 1918 described as >'moonscape')
"Opinions" are not the same as "religion".
Even unreasonably firmly held opinions.
Most but not quite all religions consist of
systems of behaviour to appease gods and
obtain favourable treatment from them.
Individual religious leaders differ on
whether that leaves concerns such as climate
change, pandemic disease, economics, and
abortion laws as problems for us to deal
with, or whether those matters are reserved
to the gods, as well. Gods whose ideas
are unavoidably old-fashioned.
On 6/4/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:16:11 -0600, lar3ryca <[email protected]> wrote:SNIP
On 2025-06-02 23:43, Titus G wrote:
On 1/06/25 03:18, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Was there supposed to be a smiling emoji at the end there?
The invisible hand of the market is invisible because it is inside the >>>> minds of buyers and sellers, their idea of the price of goods or
services at which they are prepared to buy or sell.
We don't do emojis in AuE
Well that is too bad! ;^)
Or humor, apparently.
Really I thought it was sort of dry but no humor what so ever. :^(
That is very sad. But not even puns?
bliss who remembers when we had lots of emoji but in more subtle ways
than icons.
That interpretation disregards Noah's flood.
Psalm 104 also describes a fixed earth, so you
could take it as a catalogue of its author's
ignorance of the natural world. And history. 🙂
The NET Bible has God in Psalm 104 shouting to
make the water go away. While in Genesis 8:1,
"God caused a wind to blow over the earth and
the waters receded." Maybe that's the same
event. In a modern understanding of the world,
where the waters went is a problem. Water
doesn't compress. Its volume varies with
temperature, a little.
Why? Do you really need emojis to tell you when someone is joking?
There's plenty of humour in AuE, for those that have been around
longer than this thread.
The Horny Goat <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 20:59:19 +0100, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
More than just species, an ecosystem.
Massive use by the USA of 'Agent Orange' and other defoliants in
Vietnam is another good candidate for an attempt at ecocide,
The objective was to remove cover for guerillas. In WW1 they used
artillery over most of Belgium and much of Northern France to "achieve" >>much the same result (that area was in 1918 described as 'moonscape')
The original intention for napalm was similar, before they started using
it as an anti-personnel thing. Problem is that if you want to expose
the HCM trail, you first need to know where it is... and secondly you
need to know where they moved it to after you exposed it. It turned
into a giant game of whack-a-mole and the jungle and the people in it
were the losers.
--scott
On 03/06/2025 16:46, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 10:00:35 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/06/2025 16:15, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 03:16:02 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 16:37, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo nonsense question I am responding to, and what led up to it>
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that >>>>> I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
If you consider it to be reality then you
presumably regard it as provable.
I think you are missing the thread here. Or maybe I am.
The question appears to be about "reality" as such. Not "the reality
of this" or "the reality of that" or even "the existence of reality",
but just "reality" -- and, even then, only what I consider to be
reality.
As I said, all that appears to be provable is that what I consider to
be reality really is what I consider to be reality. Since I make no
statement that it actually /is/ reality, what else is there to prove?
<snip-a-bit>
By the way - in that bible - there's a bit
about God creating things, including plants
on land, animals in the waters - but no plants
to live in water. They seem to be around now,
!though. Just a point to consider. Did I
overlook that, or did God? Did he fix it later
when no one was watching?
This is where one of Robert Graves suggestions comes in handy:
that the various sets of things created were assigned by the pagans to >>> various deities, and the account in Genesis is intended to say "no,
God, the God of Israel, did that".
In that case, the lack of aquatic vegetation mignt be taken to mean
that there was no pagan deity responsible for having created it.
Alternately, we could discuss the problems with scribes hand-copying
manuscripts -- for example, drop-outs.
There are (IIRC) two versions of this account (one in Psalms, one in
Proverbs -- IIRC) but, IIRC, they end early in the process (Earth,
Sun, Moon, Stars) and say nothing about days. This raises the
possibility of later additions in Genesis 1 to the original account.
Do you mean Psalm 104? That has a bit that
I had lost track of - that God is responsible
for stopping the sea tide from flooding the
land - again - and keeping it where it belongs.
Perhaps; there are several other references that are often considered related to the Gen 1 creation story (including the crocodile and hippopotamus in Job) and, if this isn't what I was thinking of, it
could still be related.
On biblical truth, I'll just point out that
we do see the waters of the sea flooding over
land from time to time.
And we see them retreating and then staying where they belong for a
while afterwards.
But the version I found online appears to be referring to the initial corralling of the water, so that the dry land appeared.
Keep in mind that the Psalms were songs to be sung, and so "poetic
license" might be playing a role. Or not.
That interpretation disregards Noah's flood.
Psalm 104 also describes a fixed earth, so you
could take it as a catalogue of its author's
ignorance of the natural world. And history. :-)
The NET Bible has God in Psalm 104 shouting to
make the water go away. While in Genesis 8:1,
"God caused a wind to blow over the earth and
the waters receded." Maybe that's the same
event. In a modern understanding of the world,
where the waters went is a problem. Water
doesn't compress. Its volume varies with
temperature, a little.
On 03/06/2025 16:46, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo a lot more>
But the version I found online appears to be referring to the initial
corralling of the water, so that the dry land appeared.
Keep in mind that the Psalms were songs to be sung, and so "poetic
license" might be playing a role. Or not.
That interpretation disregards Noah's flood.
Psalm 104 also describes a fixed earth, so you
could take it as a catalogue of its author's
ignorance of the natural world. And history. :-)
The NET Bible has God in Psalm 104 shouting to
make the water go away. While in Genesis 8:1,
"God caused a wind to blow over the earth and
the waters receded." Maybe that's the same
event. In a modern understanding of the world,
where the waters went is a problem. Water
doesn't compress. Its volume varies with
temperature, a little.
On 04/06/2025 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 20:56:02 -0700, The Horny Goat <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:51:53 +0000, [email protected]Hey, at least they admit that it /was/ their territory.
(jerryfriedman) wrote:
Thanks, I didn't know that. But I was thinking of
what Jan called ecocide, killing wild species.
I get frustrated with people who say "the bears have been here a
minimum of 10000 years" - it's BEAR territory not HUMAN since I live
in a subdivision literally on the edge of the forest.
Here, we get discussions on NextDoor about whether or not coyotes are
invasive.
Now every home in our area was built in the 1970s which is well beyond
the lifetime of any living bear so while it may have been bear
territory once, it certainly hasn't been so during any bear's lifetime
- and my next door neighbor had an 8' section of his fence taken down
by a bear while I myself have had a yearling bear (we think) take out
two adjacent boards in our fence which we believe our dog who was in
the back yard managed to get out of our back yard onto our street -
which is a major bus route.
Which might suggest that /some/ bears think it still /is/ theirs.
Indeed, why does it cease to be bear territory
when some humans set up camp there?
Is this political?
On 5/06/25 14:16, lar3ryca wrote:
Why? Do you really need emojis to tell you when someone is joking?
In that specific case, yes, I did.
Urban ecology is fascinating, in some ways. The dinosaur-descendants
are also interesting, even the tiny ones.
In article<[email protected]>,
Paul S Person<[email protected]d> wrote:
Urban ecology is fascinating, in some ways. The dinosaur-descendantsAt work, I encountered a squirrel trying to activate a self-opening
are also interesting, even the tiny ones.
door. No luck, but the fact it tried at all means it's either smart
enough to have deduced from watching humans that that button would
open that door, or there's a door somewhere on campus where that
trick works.
A casual check online reveals no photos of before-and-after evidence
of the use of defoliants; just a few stock images of planes flying
over trees dispersing some foggy stuff.
On 2025-06-04 23:57, Titus G wrote:
On 5/06/25 14:16, lar3ryca wrote:
Why? Do you really need emojis to tell you when someone is
joking?
In that specific case, yes, I did.
Fair enough, but the point still stands. When humour is intended,
we in AuE never telegraph our intention by, in effect, saying
"this is a joke".
On 6/5/25 8:56 PM, Jay Morris wrote:
On 6/5/2025 11:54 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article<[email protected]>,
Paul S Person<[email protected]d> wrote:
Urban ecology is fascinating, in some ways. The dinosaur-descendantsAt work, I encountered a squirrel trying to activate a self-opening
are also interesting, even the tiny ones.
door. No luck, but the fact it tried at all means it's either smart
enough to have deduced from watching humans that that button would
open that door, or there's a door somewhere on campus where that
trick works.
Videos online that show animals who have learned how to use the door
entering convenience stores and stealing food. Also a stray dog that
watched people handing over pieces of paper at a food stand and getting
food so it picked up a leaf, went up to the counter and dropped. It was
rewarded with a bite so now does it daily.
I just saw a short item today that some cockatoos in Sydney have figured
out how to use a drinking fountain. They grip the handle with their feet
and lean forward.
On 6/5/2025 3:50 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:00:40 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:
The Horny Goat <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 20:59:19 +0100, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
More than just species, an ecosystem.
Massive use by the USA of 'Agent Orange' and other defoliants in
Vietnam is another good candidate for an attempt at ecocide,
The objective was to remove cover for guerillas. In WW1 they used
artillery over most of Belgium and much of Northern France to "achieve" >>>> much the same result (that area was in 1918 described as 'moonscape')
The original intention for napalm was similar, before they started using >>> it as an anti-personnel thing. Problem is that if you want to expose
the HCM trail, you first need to know where it is... and secondly you
need to know where they moved it to after you exposed it. It turned
into a giant game of whack-a-mole and the jungle and the people in it
were the losers.
--scott
A casual check online reveals no photos of before-and-after evidence
of the use of defoliants; just a few stock images of planes flying
over trees dispersing some foggy stuff.
Here's one:
https://images.theconversation.com/files/187265/original/file-20170924-17241-1e6jns9.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip
from
https://theconversation.com/agent-orange-exposed-how-u-s-chemical-warfare-in-vietnam-unleashed-a-slow-moving-disaster-84572
<[email protected]> wrote:
Well, this sort of thing, unspecifically - in England. >><https://www.westmidlands.police.uk/news/west-midlands/news/news/2025/ja= >nuary/birmingham-teen-jailed-for-terrorism-offences/>
This is in Britain.
I don't think we've reached this point in the USA.
OTOH, possession of child pornagraphy is a crime.
On 03/06/2025 06:43, Titus G wrote:
On 1/06/25 04:09, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:10:52 +1200, Titus G <[email protected]> wrote:
On 31/05/25 04:11, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:snip
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more commonly, >>>>> excludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
What is this "one God" nonsense? Are you of Jewish Faith?
Didn't we nail a third of the three Christian Gods to a tree?
Or am I confusing that with some Speculative written fantasy Fiction
that I have read? Back on topic. (Might have been the authorised KVJ
version or perhaps a bootleg by Kilgore Trout.)
Funny as that is, just in case, let me remind you that it is "One God
in Three Persons".
So no one died?
Is it ok if we don't try to settle this in
groups rec.arts.sf.written and alt.usage.english ?
Note: there are many heresies involved with this topic. You may have
touched on Tritheism in your third statement, but it is too incoherent
to be sure. (1/3 of 1 of 3 would be 1/9 of the whole.)
A third of three,
Is coherent to me.
The formula "what I consider to be reality"[More snipping]
does look like an assertion that what it's
referring to is real. Though perhaps without
saying what it is.
<snip-a-bit>
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 08:07:56 +0100
Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
[More snipping]
The formula "what I consider to be reality"
does look like an assertion that what it's
referring to is real. Though perhaps without
saying what it is.
<snip-a-bit>
Reality's a dream, (oh-oh oh)
Thing's ain't what they seem (oh-oh oh)
There's a verse, I think just before the snake
shows up, which looks to this critic like someone
inserted a line, contradicting my "too holy to fix"
argument, to say that there wasn't rain in the
newly created world, and therefore, the natural
phenomenon of a rainbow didn't happen then. God
creates a rainbow in the Noah story. Evidence
that it happened. :-)
When the film came out, a lot of the alt-right complained because it
had "them" (African-American characters) in it.
Apparently, they had loved the books as depicting an all-white
alt-right world. In which white folks slaughter white children in the
Arena every year. Which makes you wonder why they would consider that
an acceptable thing to do.
While my stint in the US Army was that of Six Month Active Duty
Reservist in 1961, I don't think you have to have a great deal of
personal experience in the military to enjoy Catch-22.
A more recent book (it has a reference that only makes sense if it was >written in the late 1930s) asserts that, when the New Jerusalem
appears, this means that Heaven and (the New) Earth are /joined/. This
was not by a premillenialist. I think he was an amillenialist (like >Augustine, apparently) but he could be a postmillenialst. He believed
every true Christian that ever has or ever will exist is currently in
Heaven with Jesus ruling the World right now. He interprets all the
nastiness as ongoing from the Resurrection, and encompassing /all/ of >science, technology, anything /not/ in (his) Chrstian tradition. So I
can see because cataract surgery is a part of God's wrathful
punishment of the world. According to him, anyway.
Was he himself writing from Heaven - or from
New Jerusalem - or was he in different places
simultaneously? I'm sort of assuming that
this isn't the Antichrist writing, who may be
well informed but not authentically pious.
I am slowly getting down to the last few books inherited from my
grandfather. Who clearly was indeed into the study of Revelation. The
one I am reading currently is attempting to show that
pretribulationism is bunk. If that means nothing to you, consider
yourself lucky: I may not go blind from this stuff, but, wow, this ...
stuff ... is deep!
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world >(universe) /corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote or quoted:
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
However, have you heard of the "etymological fallacy," where
someone wrongly argues that a word's current meaning must be
the same as its original or historical meaning, ignoring the
fact that language evolves over time?
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
(I voted for this, because I am able to distinguish between secular
marriage and religious marriage. Alternately, since Reality did not,
in fact, curl up and die as a result, it seems possible that God
simply does not recognize them as marriages. Since the statement
claimed as "God's definition of marriage" is clearly matrilocal [the
man leaves his mother, the woman goes nowhere] and so
multigenerational, it may be that /all/ nuclear marriages fail "God's >definition" and so may be equally offensive.)
The Gospels were some of the later books of the New Testament
written. Of those, John was clearly written after the other
three; among other things, it has more of the concept that
Christianity was becoming something separate from a sect
of Judaism, and it names the disciple who cut off the chief
priest's servant's ear -- quite probably because the others
were written while Peter was still alive; John was written
after Peter was safely dead.
The Rylands manuscript, a fragment of the Gospel of John,
is reliably dated about 120 AD.
Much earlier writings are the various letters by Paul and
others, clearly written before 70AD.
The standards for reliability of ancient documents are:
1) Number of copies of the documents
2) How well the copies agree with each other
3) How close in time the earliest copies are to the events.
By all of these standards, compared to the New Testmanent,
how do, say, the works of Tacitus, Cicero, Julius Caesar rate?
Not remotely close. The works collected in the New Testament
blow them all away by these tests of reliability.
There is, of course, a fourth standard, which is never stated
by determinedly secular academicans, but is followed rigidly:
"Except Bible, we throw it all out if it's Bible."
Don't point to the KJV - primary contemporaneous sources only.
This is utter nonsense. Nobody (except a few ... non
mainstream types ...) thinks the Bible originated with
the translators hired by King James. I'm talking about
the originals, written mostly in Koine Greek, one or two,
I think may be written in Aramaic.
Also, as Arthur C. Clarke revealed to us,
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic." So for instance,
some miracles could be performed with concealed
magnets. Especially if someone doesn't know
that magnets exist.
I've read the book (mostly not KJV). I don't know
what Paul thinks is "not nice" about "miracles",
but I do remember the Jesus character doing plenty
of miracles and specifically saying that the purpose
of this was to persuade people to accept his
religious teaching.
Of course, Why else are miracles inserted in the legends of
various teachers but to make you believe the stories they are
telling about them.
Remember too that the Medieval Catholic Church did not
want the Bible in the hands of the laity.
But it still got away from the priesthood .
What you describe is called the instrumentalist view of prayer.
(if only you pray enough you deserve a reward)
AFAIK the catholic church is firmly against all this,
but some kinds of American protestants still firmly believe in it,
At the end of the English Civil War, for example, the Presbyterians of
that time assumed that now *they* would be the established church in
England. Cromwell convinced them otherwise.
On Thu, 29 May 2025 09:55:09 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
Also, as Arthur C. Clarke revealed to us,
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic." So for instance,
some miracles could be performed with concealed
magnets. Especially if someone doesn't know
that magnets exist.
You mean anybody in the time of the Roman Empire (aka 'the life and
times of Jesus') knew what a magnet was?
I think most of us as children did all kinds of things with magnets to >impress our friends. My favorite trick was holding a magnet under a
piece of paper to make another magnetic jump into the air (typically
no more than 1 or 2 inches) by means of repulsion.
My favorite magnets were the 3/4" round magnets (by roughly 3/16"
thick) that were suitable for the above types of tricks.
On Sun, 25 May 2025 09:07:16 -0700, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
A more recent book (it has a reference that only makes sense if it was >>written in the late 1930s) asserts that, when the New Jerusalem
appears, this means that Heaven and (the New) Earth are /joined/. This
was not by a premillenialist. I think he was an amillenialist (like >>Augustine, apparently) but he could be a postmillenialst. He believed
every true Christian that ever has or ever will exist is currently in >>Heaven with Jesus ruling the World right now. He interprets all the >>nastiness as ongoing from the Resurrection, and encompassing /all/ of >>science, technology, anything /not/ in (his) Chrstian tradition. So I
can see because cataract surgery is a part of God's wrathful
punishment of the world. According to him, anyway.
Hmmm and I'm scheduled for cataract surgery in two months time. The
surgeon is Jewish so you can grok what I think of THAT "tradition".
(With me it's mostly about zapping "cataract precursors" before they
have a chance to grow to become real cataracts...
On Mon, 26 May 2025 08:37:19 -0700, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "somethingIn fairness, "something you don't see every day" includes things like
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world >>(universe) /corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New >>Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
me picking my daughter up from the airport (which I'm actually doing >tomorrow) which to be fair isn't something people make life changing
steps in their life the way conversion to a faith they didn't
previously belong to.
The Christian view of heaven is "The New Jerusalem where all suffering
and pain will be banished forever - to be inhabited only by the just
which is defined by those who have accepted the teachings of the
faith. Other faiths have other definitions.
It certainly isn't anything remotely miraculous like parting the Red
Sea or resurrection from the dead.
As for events like the Last Judgement that's pretty easy to bring
about >IF< you believe in an omnipotent creator who has an interest in
this world and completely absurd if you don't.
"Something worth looking at" can involve fairly mundane but uncommon
things such as my daughter arriving home from seeing her sister in the
UK. Which while unusual (in terms of 'not happening every day') and is >something I am looking forward to doesn't come close to any
Christian's view of seeing heaven for the first time (or alternately
choose an analogous event in some other faith) which is expected to be
their happiest event ever.
In other words I understand your point but your description is a
fairly powerful understatement.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:21:32 -0700, The Horny Goat <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 08:37:19 -0700, Paul S Person
<[email protected]d> wrote:
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "somethingIn fairness, "something you don't see every day" includes things like
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world
(universe) /corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
me picking my daughter up from the airport (which I'm actually doing
tomorrow) which to be fair isn't something people make life changing
steps in their life the way conversion to a faith they didn't
previously belong to.
The Christian view of heaven is "The New Jerusalem where all suffering
and pain will be banished forever - to be inhabited only by the just
which is defined by those who have accepted the teachings of the
faith. Other faiths have other definitions.
It certainly isn't anything remotely miraculous like parting the Red
Sea or resurrection from the dead.
As for events like the Last Judgement that's pretty easy to bring
about >IF< you believe in an omnipotent creator who has an interest in
this world and completely absurd if you don't.
"Something worth looking at" can involve fairly mundane but uncommon
things such as my daughter arriving home from seeing her sister in the
UK. Which while unusual (in terms of 'not happening every day') and is
something I am looking forward to doesn't come close to any
Christian's view of seeing heaven for the first time (or alternately
choose an analogous event in some other faith) which is expected to be
their happiest event ever.
In other words I understand your point but your description is a
fairly powerful understatement.
/The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/, published
1969, does have the intellectualized definition as "1.". But then it
has:
2. A person, thing, or event that excites admiring awe.
This, of course, is the definition I am referring to.
But 1969 is a long time ago. Perhaps this meaning has disappeared over
time.
As to the New Jerusalem, it is Revelation's view of the matter. The
second /Ice Age/ film showed a Saber-tooth Squirrel Heaven at the end
which is a good representation of what most people I have encountered actually think Heaven to be, golden fence/gate, green grass, and all.
Not to mention the One True Acorn, of which all lesser acorns are but
images.
Note that CS Lewis goes for this sort of thing in /The Last Battle/,
which knows nothing of a New Jerusalem. And where, indeed, would he
put it? Earth or Narnia?
I do find it odd that various evil types should be mentioned as not
allowed to enter -- not that they can't enter, but that they /exist/.
Only a bit earlier, these were said to /all/ have gone into the Lake
of Fire. So how is it they are still around? Surely after everything
has been destroyed and renewed human beings will no longer have the
knowledge of good and evil and so be restored to their original state
as well. There appears to be some confusion here. Probably mine, to be
sure.
On 6/24/25 09:30, Paul S Person wrote:
As to the New Jerusalem, it is Revelation's view of the matter. The
second /Ice Age/ film showed a Saber-tooth Squirrel Heaven at the end
which is a good representation of what most people I have encountered
actually think Heaven to be, golden fence/gate, green grass, and all.
Not to mention the One True Acorn, of which all lesser acorns are but
images.
Note that CS Lewis goes for this sort of thing in /The Last Battle/,
which knows nothing of a New Jerusalem. And where, indeed, would he
put it? Earth or Narnia?
No with the Diety of your choice "further in and deeper in" as was
recounted
in one volume when the end of the Narnian world happens.
I do find it odd that various evil types should be mentioned as not
allowed to enter -- not that they can't enter, but that they /exist/.
Only a bit earlier, these were said to /all/ have gone into the Lake
of Fire. So how is it they are still around? Surely after everything
has been destroyed and renewed human beings will no longer have the
knowledge of good and evil and so be restored to their original state
as well. There appears to be some confusion here. Probably mine, to be
sure.
Perhaps Lewis;a diety of choice wants all to be eventually returned to
Grace as he understood it. So they suffer in the "Lake of Fire" to be >purified
so that like humans in Purgatory they can eventually enter into Heavenly >bliss.
Yes I read the Narnian books quite some time back along with the
extraterrestrial adventures of Ransom.
In Christian Mythos as in Tolkienian adaptation the Evil One corrupts
but only the Diety of choice creates. Melkor was powerful but by no means
did he create Dragons, Orcs or Trolls which by the scheme of things are >creations of the one which he bent to his will. And despite his great power >he was forced back into the Void by the others whom Ainu had set to guard
his creation. Sauron was far less powerful but managed to further corrrupt >men and orcs.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:11:17 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/24/25 09:30, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo>
As to the New Jerusalem, it is Revelation's view of the matter. The
second /Ice Age/ film showed a Saber-tooth Squirrel Heaven at the end
which is a good representation of what most people I have encountered
actually think Heaven to be, golden fence/gate, green grass, and all.
Not to mention the One True Acorn, of which all lesser acorns are but
images.
Note that CS Lewis goes for this sort of thing in /The Last Battle/,
which knows nothing of a New Jerusalem. And where, indeed, would he
put it? Earth or Narnia?
No with the Diety of your choice "further in and deeper in" as was
recounted
in one volume when the end of the Narnian world happens.
Which, IIRC, is /The Last Battle/.
But thanks for confirming my point.
I do find it odd that various evil types should be mentioned as not
allowed to enter -- not that they can't enter, but that they /exist/.
Only a bit earlier, these were said to /all/ have gone into the Lake
of Fire. So how is it they are still around? Surely after everything
has been destroyed and renewed human beings will no longer have the
knowledge of good and evil and so be restored to their original state
as well. There appears to be some confusion here. Probably mine, to be
sure.
Perhaps Lewis;a diety of choice wants all to be eventually returned to >> Grace as he understood it. So they suffer in the "Lake of Fire" to be
purified
so that like humans in Purgatory they can eventually enter into Heavenly
bliss.
I apologize for being less clear. The Lake of Fire precedes the New
Jerusalem in the Biblical book Apocalypse. Not in Lewis.
CS Lewis had two versions of Hell: one was a place from which God, in
His mercy, withdrew his presence so that those who would suffer if
subjected to it could avoid it; the other was that everyone went to
the same place, but those not prepared (by the Church) for it would
feel the presence of God as painful.
Luther, at one point, agrees with a Scholastic school that the damned,
while indeed in Hell and while indeed in pain are not in pain because
of the fires of Hell but because of the absence of God's presence.
Yes I read the Narnian books quite some time back along with the
extraterrestrial adventures of Ransom.
In Christian Mythos as in Tolkienian adaptation the Evil One corrupts >> but only the Diety of choice creates. Melkor was powerful but by no means
did he create Dragons, Orcs or Trolls which by the scheme of things are
creations of the one which he bent to his will. And despite his great power >> he was forced back into the Void by the others whom Ainu had set to guard
his creation. Sauron was far less powerful but managed to further corrrupt >> men and orcs.
Not a bad interpretation of the final form of the material. In the
first form, the dragons (at least) were mechanical. The later is a bit ambiguous: some of his followers simply liked being on his side, some
may or may not have been genetically engineered from innocuous forms,
but, yes, none were created.
Melkor was weakened enough to be banished because he also inserted his "stuff" (no, literally, "Melkor-stuff") into Arda. So that everything
was corrupted by it. There was a theory that Man, by living a short
time and dying, was removing it as a result and so helping to purify
Arda.
At one point, the difference between Melkor and Sauron (other than
strength) was clarified: Melkor wanted to destroy all of Eru Iluvatar' creation -- and had he succeeded in reducing it to atoms, would still
have been unhappy because the atoms still existed.
Sauron, OTOH, wanted to rule Arda. Or at least Middle-Earth.
Note: This relies on a very large set of very large books collectively
called /The History of Middle-Earth/, by his son Christopher (CJRT).
These provide JRRT's other writings, edited by CJRT. It includes a
subset on how /The Lord of the Rings/ was written.
There is a separate 2-volume set on /The History of The Hobbit/, which
deals with how /The Hobbit/ was written. Some of it is pretty
interesting: that the Shire map is the Beleriand map rotated 90
degrees; that the Arkenstone was, in fact, a Silmaril.
Yes I have read some of those but I take the final form from J.R.R.
Tolkien
in Lord of the Rings triology and the Hobbit to be Canon and the stuff
that came
later as attempts to increase income. But some parts taken from
J.R.R.T.'s first
versions are very good. If some of material had been moved to the LOTR
then
it might have come off as less sexist.
I used to try to write explanations of the series but it is basically a
religious work
depending on suspension of disbelief with a more coherent plot than most >scripture.
That is because it is from one brilliant writer rather than assembled
from bronze age
stories passed down orally.
On 23/06/2025 22:24, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 23:52:43 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
Was he himself writing from Heaven - or from
New Jerusalem - or was he in different places
simultaneously? I'm sort of assuming that
this isn't the Antichrist writing, who may be
well informed but not authentically pious.
Supposedly St John wrote the Revelation when he was exiled to the Isle
of Patmos which is one of the small islands in the Aegean between
Greece + Turkey. He says he had visions and recorded what he saw.
Christian sources figure he was at least 80 if not 90 years old when
he wrote it and that it was the last book of the New Testament to be
written.
Per <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation>
it's probably someone else called John. But John of
Patmos, I infer, isn't a "Saint" because if he is,
then he may be St John after all.
As usual, he was writing shortly before the end of
the world. But I was asking about a reviewer of
Revelation, who seems to think that "Revelation"
now has happened, and all true Christians are safely
in Heaven with God. I wondered how, in that case,
he got a book published about it down here on Earth.
At a funeral service for a dear friend under Quaker auspices I discovered
that Quakers talk too much. Quakers are non-violent unless the provocation >such as freeing slaves or keeping their property in very important and no >president should be elected who holds fast to the principles of
non-violence.
On biblical truth, I'll just point out that
we do see the waters of the sea flooding over
land from time to time.
Predators, like coyotes, are known to eat pets (cats and dogs). This
makes their owners unhappy. (They are also credited with helping in
the Fight Against Rats and in keeping the wild bunny population down,
so they are a good thing too. Also, they make for some very
nice-looking photos!)
On 04/06/2025 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 20:56:02 -0700, The Horny Goat <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:51:53 +0000, [email protected]
Now every home in our area was built in the 1970s which is well beyond
the lifetime of any living bear so while it may have been bear
territory once, it certainly hasn't been so during any bear's lifetime
- and my next door neighbor had an 8' section of his fence taken down
by a bear while I myself have had a yearling bear (we think) take out
two adjacent boards in our fence which we believe our dog who was in
the back yard managed to get out of our back yard onto our street -
which is a major bus route.
Which might suggest that /some/ bears think it still /is/ theirs.
Indeed, why does it cease to be bear territory
when some humans set up camp there?
Is this political?
I just saw a short item today that some cockatoos in Sydney have figured
out how to use a drinking fountain. They grip the handle with their feet
and lean forward.
On 08/07/2025 03:36, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 10:00:35 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
On biblical truth, I'll just point out that
we do see the waters of the sea flooding over
land from time to time.
Doesn't that happen on most beaches twice a day?
Catching up... I was taking it that that
doesn't count. Though I also was supposing
that the author of Psalm 104 may have not
personally seen the sea.
Here's "The NET Bible" version, I hope not
too much of a quote. Not incidentally, its
scholarly footnotes include an assertion
that verses 7-8 refer to Genesis 1 and not
to the Noah story. <snippage>
I've played with natural lodestones - they weren't
very strong.
Small, strong, neodymium/rare earth magnets are
turning up everywhere these days.
Keep them out of the hands of children. Swallowing
one will generally not be a problem, but if two
are swallowed, they will snap together in different
loops of intestine, and cause necrosis and perforation.
Perhaps Lewis;a diety of choice wants all to be eventually returned to
Grace as he understood it. So they suffer in the "Lake of Fire" to be >purified
so that like humans in Purgatory they can eventually enter into Heavenly >bliss.
Hmmm and I'm scheduled for cataract surgery in two months time. The
surgeon is Jewish so you can grok what I think of THAT "tradition".
(With me it's mostly about zapping "cataract precursors" before they
have a chance to grow to become real cataracts...
Sounds like a medical advance.=20
In my mother's day, she never got cataract surgery because hers
weren't "ripe" enough.
IOW, her doctor decided that she could see well enough. His vision, of >course, was not impaired by her cataracts at all.
That said Cromwell wouldn't have defeated the Stuarts with his
Scottish friends.
I think you mean "without".
And it wasn't Cromwell in charge.
And I'm not convinced.
CS Lewis had two versions of Hell: one was a place from which God, in
His mercy, withdrew his presence so that those who would suffer if
subjected to it could avoid it; the other was that everyone went to
the same place, but those not prepared (by the Church) for it would
feel the presence of God as painful.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 10:00:35 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
On biblical truth, I'll just point out that
we do see the waters of the sea flooding over
land from time to time.
Doesn't that happen on most beaches twice a day?
As usual, he was writing shortly before the end of
the world. But I was asking about a reviewer of
Revelation, who seems to think that "Revelation"
now has happened, and all true Christians are safely
in Heaven with God. I wondered how, in that case,
he got a book published about it down here on Earth.
Just curious - what was the reviewer's background? Reason I ask is
that that view doesn't correspond with any of the major Christian
traditions. Yet only Christians would have thought much about the
eternal state of Christians. (And I'm not aware of splinter Christian
groups that teach that - and I have studied a fair bit on this - have
I forgotten one?)
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 09:34:49 -0700, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
Hmmm and I'm scheduled for cataract surgery in two months time. The >>>surgeon is Jewish so you can grok what I think of THAT "tradition".
(With me it's mostly about zapping "cataract precursors" before they
have a chance to grow to become real cataracts...
Sounds like a medical advance.=20
In my mother's day, she never got cataract surgery because hers
weren't "ripe" enough.
IOW, her doctor decided that she could see well enough. His vision, of >>course, was not impaired by her cataracts at all.
Yup - I understand that. Unfortunately in my case he did the left eye
in 2023 and is only getting around to the right eye in August. We had
hoped to get to 20/20 after surgery but am now told that probably
isn't happening. On the other hand I am typing this without my glasses
from a range of about 18" (e.g. typical computer user to monitor
distance)
The Horny Goat <[email protected]> wrote:
Just curious - what was the reviewer's background? Reason I ask is
that that view doesn't correspond with any of the major Christian >>traditions. Yet only Christians would have thought much about the
eternal state of Christians. (And I'm not aware of splinter Christian >>groups that teach that - and I have studied a fair bit on this - have
I forgotten one?)
Most Christians don't actually believe in the Rapture at all, although >probably this belief is more popular in America thanks to Hal Lindsey.
Of those churches who do, very few of them hold the belief that the
Rapture has already happened and that we are the remainder who are
left. But I know some churches that split off from the Witnesses do
believe that, and they believe that we are living in the Time of
Tribulation right now.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:11:17 -0700, Bobbie Sellers ><[email protected]> wrote:
Perhaps Lewis;a diety of choice wants all to be eventually returned to >>Grace as he understood it. So they suffer in the "Lake of Fire" to be >>purified
so that like humans in Purgatory they can eventually enter into Heavenly >>bliss.
Catch is Purgatory is a Catholic doctrine not found in other Christian >traditions. Thus for non-Catholics one must not pray FOR the dead but
rather it's considered VERY appropriate to give thanks to God for
their life. In my case there's a park close to my home with a lookout
my lady loved - so I give thanks for milady there usually when walking
the dog.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 00:14:05 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
As usual, he was writing shortly before the end of
the world. But I was asking about a reviewer of
Revelation, who seems to think that "Revelation"
now has happened, and all true Christians are safely
in Heaven with God. I wondered how, in that case,
he got a book published about it down here on Earth.
Just curious - what was the reviewer's background? Reason I ask is
that that view doesn't correspond with any of the major Christian
traditions. Yet only Christians would have thought much about the
eternal state of Christians. (And I'm not aware of splinter Christian
groups that teach that - and I have studied a fair bit on this - have
I forgotten one?)
One of the commentaries (a modernist one, IIRC) actually asserted
that, when the Seven Churches read the book, they believed the results
of the various seals, trumpets, and bowls were something God Himself
was sending them right then. Most commentators, of course, believe
these are more generally applicable.
He never did get around to explaining what they thought the New
Jerusalem represented.=20
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 08:27:09 -0700, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
One of the commentaries (a modernist one, IIRC) actually asserted
that, when the Seven Churches read the book, they believed the results
of the various seals, trumpets, and bowls were something God Himself
was sending them right then. Most commentators, of course, believe
these are more generally applicable.
He never did get around to explaining what they thought the New
Jerusalem represented.=20
Any idea which commentator said that? Because I've never heard any
such claim of the book of Revelation was intended to come about
immediately.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 08:27:09 -0700, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
One of the commentaries (a modernist one, IIRC) actually asserted
that, when the Seven Churches read the book, they believed the results
of the various seals, trumpets, and bowls were something God Himself
was sending them right then. Most commentators, of course, believe
these are more generally applicable.
He never did get around to explaining what they thought the New
Jerusalem represented.=20
Any idea which commentator said that? Because I've never heard any
such claim of the book of Revelation was intended to come about
immediately.
On 24/06/2025 17:11, Paul S Person wrote:
I am wondering whether my flat refrigerator magnets, of which I have
an abundance, are recyclable or not -- that is, if they are magnetic
enough to count.
Do you mean to recycle as iron?
<https://magnummagnetics.com/blog/how-are-magnets-made/>
is a document I've just failed to understand
on the subject.
I think the answer is "it depends", but also
that magnets in your recycling waste will cause
trouble, such as sticking to machinery and
jamming it, and if you hypothetically ask a
recycling service whether they accept "x" for
recycling, and thry haven't asked for "x",
then just from caution, the answer will be no.
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 00:35:21 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
Not necessarily the same alternate reality occupied by MAGA and the >alt-right, of course. Or the left wing-nuts who think supporting Hamas
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:08:05 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> writes:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 00:35:21 +0100, Robert Carnegie >>><[email protected]> wrote:
Not necessarily the same alternate reality occupied by MAGA and the >>>alt-right, of course. Or the left wing-nuts who think supporting Hamas
They support the Palestian people, not the Hamas terrorists[*].
I wish that were the case. But their words and actions suggest
otherwise.
And why not? The Gazans /themselves/ support Hamas. They cheer each
Hamas "victory". And hate the Israelis for daring to respond.
One can certainly disapprove of Israeli actions in the middle
east without being anti-semitic (which is defined as 'hatred of jews').
Indeed one can.=20
But not by chanting "from the river to the sea".
[*] What would -you- do if some group of foriegn countries gave
Seattle to the Native Americans and forcibly moved you and the
other non-native residents to Hanford? Red Dawn?
Sounds like the nonsense Serbia was putting out when trying to subdue
Kosovo. Has Serbian koolaid reached your area?
I'm not sure how the First Peoples came into this. I would be very
surprised if you believed that they are the Ten Lost Tribes.
But thanks for implicitly admitting that Palestine (all of it, both
sides of the river) was once subject to Israelite rule.=20
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> writes:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 00:35:21 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
Not necessarily the same alternate reality occupied by MAGA and the >>alt-right, of course. Or the left wing-nuts who think supporting Hamas
They support the Palestian people, not the Hamas terrorists[*].
One can certainly disapprove of Israeli actions in the middle
east without being anti-semitic (which is defined as 'hatred of jews').
[*] What would -you- do if some group of foriegn countries gave
Seattle to the Native Americans and forcibly moved you and the
other non-native residents to Hanford? Red Dawn?
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:08:05 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> writes:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 00:35:21 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
Not necessarily the same alternate reality occupied by MAGA and the
alt-right, of course. Or the left wing-nuts who think supporting Hamas
They support the Palestian people, not the Hamas terrorists[*].
I wish that were the case. But their words and actions suggest
otherwise.
And why not? The Gazans /themselves/ support Hamas. They cheer each
Hamas "victory". And hate the Israelis for daring to respond.
One can certainly disapprove of Israeli actions in the middle
east without being anti-semitic (which is defined as 'hatred of jews').
Indeed one can.
But not by chanting "from the river to the sea".
[*] What would -you- do if some group of foriegn countries gave
Seattle to the Native Americans and forcibly moved you and the
other non-native residents to Hanford? Red Dawn?
Sounds like the nonsense Serbia was putting out when trying to subdue
Kosovo. Has Serbian koolaid reached your area?
I'm not sure how the First Peoples came into this. I would be very
surprised if you believed that they are the Ten Lost Tribes.
But thanks for implicitly admitting that Palestine (all of it, both
sides of the river) was once subject to Israelite rule.
Some Gazans may, indeed support Hamas. You'll need to support
your assertion that "all" Gazans do.
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> writes:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 00:35:21 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
Not necessarily the same alternate reality occupied by MAGA and the >>alt-right, of course. Or the left wing-nuts who think supporting Hamas
They support the Palestian people, not the Hamas terrorists[*].
One can certainly disapprove of Israeli actions in the middle
east without being anti-semitic (which is defined as 'hatred of jews').
[*] What would -you- do if some group of foriegn countries gave
Seattle to the Native Americans and forcibly moved you and the
other non-native residents to Hanford? Red Dawn?
And why not? The Gazans /themselves/ support Hamas. They cheer each
Hamas "victory". And hate the Israelis for daring to respond.
One can certainly disapprove of Israeli actions in the middle
east without being anti-semitic (which is defined as 'hatred of jews').
Indeed one can.
But not by chanting "from the river to the sea".
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 15:29:52 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Some Gazans may, indeed support Hamas. You'll need to support
your assertion that "all" Gazans do.
Obviously ALL Gazans aren't going to do anything but the whole reason
for the current angst is that when it comes to food aid to Gaza there
are two groups: (1) the UNRRA/UN group which delivers their food aid
to HAMAS who then sells it to Gazans (it's claimed at inflated prices
which I can't verify) but uses the proceeds to pay their troops etc
for what was SUPPOSED to (by donors) to be for FREE distribution to
Gazans, and the pro-Israeli group which refuses to deal with HAMAS and refuses to sell anything - it's strictly given away.
The problem is NOT lack of food - the Israelis say they are currently delivering to Gaza roughly twice what they gave before 7 Oct 2023 -
but rather distribution.
And the fact that HAMAS is selling food that is supposed to be freely
given is utterly shameful.
Bottom line is why is Israel giving ANYTHING? In WW2 America, Britain
and the other Allied countries were very generous to Germans but NOT
until after the Germans had surrendered. HAMAS is still fighting and
holding hostages so why is Israel giving them anything? Gaza can have
peace any time HAMAS wants it - thus far they DON'T - and it's NOT
"genocide" for the Israelis to withhold food aid before there's a
ceasefire. It seems to me all the Israelis giving them food now is
extending the war not shortening it.
On 8/1/25 08:20, Paul S Person wrote:
But thanks for implicitly admitting that Palestine (all of it, both
sides of the river) was once subject to Israelite rule.
So long ago that we might count it as mythical if not for
other sources. So we the western world sent them back to Israel
disregarding the fact theat for about 2000 years it had been in
other hands.
That was an error.
If we recognixe the Native Americans as overall owners
of the North American continent we would have to pay rent
to them as our landlords which might be just but inconvenient.
Worse they might want us to get rid of our dubious
improvements to their property and that would be very
inconvenient. We are already taking down dams in the
North-West to restore the free flow of rivers and lesser
streams.
Inconvenience is the true meaning of the word
translated as "Sin" but for our convenience we have
polluted the world with fossil fuel use. In a few more
years we will see the outcome of that inconvenience.
Obviously ALL Gazans aren't going to do anything but the whole reason
for the current angst is that when it comes to food aid to Gaza there
are two groups: (1) the UNRRA/UN group which delivers their food aid
to HAMAS who then sells it to Gazans (it's claimed at inflated prices
which I can't verify) but uses the proceeds to pay their troops etc
for what was SUPPOSED to (by donors) to be for FREE distribution to
Gazans, and the pro-Israeli group which refuses to deal with HAMAS and >refuses to sell anything - it's strictly given away.
The problem is NOT lack of food - the Israelis say they are currently >delivering to Gaza roughly twice what they gave before 7 Oct 2023 -
but rather distribution.
And the fact that HAMAS is selling food that is supposed to be freely
given is utterly shameful.
Bottom line is why is Israel giving ANYTHING? In WW2 America, Britain
and the other Allied countries were very generous to Germans but NOT
until after the Germans had surrendered. HAMAS is still fighting and
holding hostages so why is Israel giving them anything? Gaza can have
peace any time HAMAS wants it - thus far they DON'T - and it's NOT
"genocide" for the Israelis to withhold food aid before there's a
ceasefire. It seems to me all the Israelis giving them food now is
extending the war not shortening it.
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 09:33:01 -0700, Bobbie Sellers ><[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/1/25 08:20, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo>
But thanks for implicitly admitting that Palestine (all of it, both
sides of the river) was once subject to Israelite rule.
So long ago that we might count it as mythical if not for
other sources. So we the western world sent them back to Israel >>disregarding the fact theat for about 2000 years it had been in
other hands.
That was an error.
You can thank the anti-Semites for that. A large part of it was guilt
over the Holocaust.
Palestinians in Gaza are not necessarily supporting HAMAS but
are the victims of that Terror cult. The Israels need to stop dropping
bombs on schools, hospital and churches. If they think HAMAS is
hiding somewhere they need to got there with guns and kill them
selectively. Not randomly murdering anyone who gets in the way
of the IDF. Even Israeli intellectuals believe that effectively Genocide
is being done in Gaza. As for food the children are dying from lack
of Food, hospitals are unable to do their good work without fuel and
people trying to get food at distribution points are been terrorized
by the private security hired to distribute the food.
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 09:33:01 -0700, Bobbie Sellers ><[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/1/25 08:20, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo>
But thanks for implicitly admitting that Palestine (all of it, both
sides of the river) was once subject to Israelite rule.
So long ago that we might count it as mythical if not for
other sources. So we the western world sent them back to Israel >>disregarding the fact theat for about 2000 years it had been in
other hands.
That was an error.
You can thank the anti-Semites for that. A large part of it was guilt
over the Holocaust.
If we recognixe the Native Americans as overall owners
of the North American continent we would have to pay rent
to them as our landlords which might be just but inconvenient.
Worse they might want us to get rid of our dubious
improvements to their property and that would be very
inconvenient. We are already taking down dams in the
North-West to restore the free flow of rivers and lesser
streams.
Restore them so the salmon can breed.
And it still is important economically. It is possible to accomodate a >cultural desire and protect an economically important industry at the
same time.
Indeed, article after article (maybe two or three a year, it isn't as
it if were a steady thing) in /Science News/ explores how local
involvement is key to ecological success. In at least some cases,
tourism is as much at stake as the plants/animals being protected.
Inconvenience is the true meaning of the word
translated as "Sin" but for our convenience we have
polluted the world with fossil fuel use. In a few more
years we will see the outcome of that inconvenience.
It's been a while since I reached this conclusion (which is,
therefore, IMHO), but my take on the Greek word (hamartia) is more
like "missing the mark" -- which Katniss did with her first shot in
her private session in /The Hunger Games/ (guess what movie I saw a
few nights ago).
Other ways of putting "missing the mark" would be "failing to meet >expectations" or "not coming up to standards".
On Sat, 02 Aug 2025 09:05:13 -0700, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 09:33:01 -0700, Bobbie Sellers >><[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/1/25 08:20, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo>
But thanks for implicitly admitting that Palestine (all of it, both
sides of the river) was once subject to Israelite rule.
So long ago that we might count it as mythical if not for
other sources. So we the western world sent them back to Israel >>>disregarding the fact theat for about 2000 years it had been in
other hands.
That was an error.
You can thank the anti-Semites for that. A large part of it was guilt
over the Holocaust.
If we recognixe the Native Americans as overall owners
of the North American continent we would have to pay rent
to them as our landlords which might be just but inconvenient.
Worse they might want us to get rid of our dubious
improvements to their property and that would be very
inconvenient. We are already taking down dams in the
North-West to restore the free flow of rivers and lesser
streams.
Restore them so the salmon can breed.
British Columbia (Canada) has been building salmon hatcheries for 50+
years. (Which given BC has 90+% of Canadian salmon means MOST salmon
streams)
I am absolutely opposed to giving aboriginal peoples veto power on
dams and production of hydroelectricity. (Which is British Columbia's
MAIN source of electricity - for those unfamiliar BC is pretty much
all of Canada west of the Rockies)
And it still is important economically. It is possible to accomodate a >>cultural desire and protect an economically important industry at the
same time.
Only if the federal (or possibly the provincial) government retains
the final say.
Indeed, article after article (maybe two or three a year, it isn't as
it if were a steady thing) in /Science News/ explores how local
involvement is key to ecological success. In at least some cases,
tourism is as much at stake as the plants/animals being protected.
Again - we're talking about the difference between input and veto
power. There's a huge difference and it's an important difference.
--Inconvenience is the true meaning of the word
translated as "Sin" but for our convenience we have
polluted the world with fossil fuel use. In a few more
years we will see the outcome of that inconvenience.
It's been a while since I reached this conclusion (which is,
therefore, IMHO), but my take on the Greek word (hamartia) is more
like "missing the mark" -- which Katniss did with her first shot in
her private session in /The Hunger Games/ (guess what movie I saw a
few nights ago).
Other ways of putting "missing the mark" would be "failing to meet >>expectations" or "not coming up to standards".
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:57:44 -0700, Bobbie Sellers ><[email protected]> wrote:
Palestinians in Gaza are not necessarily supporting HAMAS butWhich REALLY makes me wonder since the Israelis say they've been
are the victims of that Terror cult. The Israels need to stop dropping >>bombs on schools, hospital and churches. If they think HAMAS is
hiding somewhere they need to got there with guns and kill them >>selectively. Not randomly murdering anyone who gets in the way
of the IDF. Even Israeli intellectuals believe that effectively Genocide >>is being done in Gaza. As for food the children are dying from lack
of Food, hospitals are unable to do their good work without fuel and
people trying to get food at distribution points are been terrorized
by the private security hired to distribute the food.
sending the equivalent of 3000 calories/day for every man woman and
child in Gaza and that they are well aware that that's just what
THEY'RE sending and does not include those sent by the UN or other
agencies.
Saw a Youtube earlier this week involving a British military officer
who has served just about everywhere appalling in the last 20 years
who said the problem is clearly distribution within Gaza NOT the
amount of food aid going to Gaza. What the kicker seems to be is that >everything going via the UN goes via UNRRA where 95% of the food goes
to HAMAS warehouses - where HAMAS sells the food at inflated prices to >civilians and uses the proceeds to fund HAMAS activities and that
HAMAS has several large warehouses full of "food aid" which is
SUPPOSED to be distributed gratis not sold to civilians.
I am not willing to contribute financially to HAMAS so I am not
willing to have my government contribute to HAMAS via UNRRA.
That view will change if and when HAMAS starts distributing gratis - I
am NOT willing to make a financial contribution to HAMAS under any >circumstances.
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:57:44 -0700, Bobbie Sellers ><[email protected]> wrote:
Palestinians in Gaza are not necessarily supporting HAMAS butWhich REALLY makes me wonder since the Israelis say they've been
are the victims of that Terror cult. The Israels need to stop dropping >>bombs on schools, hospital and churches. If they think HAMAS is
hiding somewhere they need to got there with guns and kill them >>selectively. Not randomly murdering anyone who gets in the way
of the IDF. Even Israeli intellectuals believe that effectively Genocide >>is being done in Gaza. As for food the children are dying from lack
of Food, hospitals are unable to do their good work without fuel and
people trying to get food at distribution points are been terrorized
by the private security hired to distribute the food.
sending the equivalent of 3000 calories/day for every man woman and
child in Gaza and that they are well aware that that's just what
THEY'RE sending and does not include those sent by the UN or other
agencies.
On 8/1/25 13:03, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 15:29:52 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Some Gazans may, indeed support Hamas. You'll need to support
your assertion that "all" Gazans do.
Obviously ALL Gazans aren't going to do anything but the whole reason
for the current angst is that when it comes to food aid to Gaza there
are two groups: (1) the UNRRA/UN group which delivers their food aid
to HAMAS who then sells it to Gazans (it's claimed at inflated prices
which I can't verify) but uses the proceeds to pay their troops etc
for what was SUPPOSED to (by donors) to be for FREE distribution to
Gazans, and the pro-Israeli group which refuses to deal with HAMAS and
refuses to sell anything - it's strictly given away.
The problem is NOT lack of food - the Israelis say they are currently
delivering to Gaza roughly twice what they gave before 7 Oct 2023 -
but rather distribution.
And the fact that HAMAS is selling food that is supposed to be freely
given is utterly shameful.
Bottom line is why is Israel giving ANYTHING? In WW2 America, Britain
and the other Allied countries were very generous to Germans but NOT
until after the Germans had surrendered. HAMAS is still fighting and
holding hostages so why is Israel giving them anything? Gaza can have
peace any time HAMAS wants it - thus far they DON'T - and it's NOT
"genocide" for the Israelis to withhold food aid before there's a
ceasefire. It seems to me all the Israelis giving them food now is
extending the war not shortening it.
Palestinians in Gaza are not necessarily supporting HAMAS but
are the victims of that Terror cult. The Israels need to stop dropping
bombs on schools, hospital and churches. If they think HAMAS is
hiding somewhere they need to got there with guns and kill them
selectively. Not randomly murdering anyone who gets in the way
of the IDF. Even Israeli intellectuals believe that effectively Genocide
is being done in Gaza. As for food the children are dying from lack
of Food, hospitals are unable to do their good work without fuel and
people trying to get food at distribution points are been terrorized
by the private security hired to distribute the food.
Does not matter why Israel is doing anything but too many
children have died already and Netanyahu is only demonstrating
that Jewish Authoritarian governments can be as bad as NAZI
regimes. For every child that dies and leaves grieving relatives
there will be recruits to HAMAS-like organizations dedicated to
the revenge for this Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
Of course this is just my opinion based on facts I have
read about.
bliss
This is pretty much what I have a problem with. The IDF seems to have
decided that if they think a building *might* be being used by Hamas,
the solution is to level it with missiles, bombs, and artillery,
regardless of the civilians inside.
Going in and fighting room to room would certainly cost more IDF
casualties, but greatly lower civilian deaths, and damage to
infrastructure.
To me, it looks like the Hamas attacks are being used by
Netanyahu as a pretext to level all of Gaza to the ground,
and make it uninhabitable, so the Palestinians move to some
other country. It looks as if he want all of Israel to be
free of Palestinians.
On 8/1/2025 8:10 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
And why not? The Gazans /themselves/ support Hamas. They cheer each
Hamas "victory". And hate the Israelis for daring to respond.
I don't think so, no. I think the people on both sides want peace and the >> governments on both sides want war. This sort of thing never goes well.
You do hear Palestinians talking about how terrible Israel is but mostly
they just want their land back.
One can certainly disapprove of Israeli actions in the middleIndeed one can.
east without being anti-semitic (which is defined as 'hatred of jews'). >>>
But not by chanting "from the river to the sea".
You know that started out as an Israeli slogan, right?
The original is a lot more expansive:
Deuteronomy 11:24
"Every place where you set your foot will be yours: Your territory will >extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the Euphrates River to the >Mediterranean Sea."
On 8/1/25 13:03, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 15:29:52 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Some Gazans may, indeed support Hamas. You'll need to support
your assertion that "all" Gazans do.
Obviously ALL Gazans aren't going to do anything but the whole reason
for the current angst is that when it comes to food aid to Gaza there
are two groups: (1) the UNRRA/UN group which delivers their food aid
to HAMAS who then sells it to Gazans (it's claimed at inflated prices
which I can't verify) but uses the proceeds to pay their troops etc
for what was SUPPOSED to (by donors) to be for FREE distribution to
Gazans, and the pro-Israeli group which refuses to deal with HAMAS and
refuses to sell anything - it's strictly given away.
The problem is NOT lack of food - the Israelis say they are currently
delivering to Gaza roughly twice what they gave before 7 Oct 2023 -
but rather distribution.
And the fact that HAMAS is selling food that is supposed to be freely
given is utterly shameful.
Palestinians in Gaza are not necessarily supporting HAMAS but
are the victims of that Terror cult. The Israels need to stop dropping
bombs on schools, hospital and churches. If they think HAMAS is
hiding somewhere they need to got there with guns and kill them
selectively. Not randomly murdering anyone who gets in the way
of the IDF. Even Israeli intellectuals believe that effectively Genocide
is being done in Gaza. As for food the children are dying from lack
of Food, hospitals are unable to do their good work without fuel and
people trying to get food at distribution points are been terrorized
by the private security hired to distribute the food.
Does not matter why Israel is doing anything but too many
children have died already and Netanyahu is only demonstrating
that Jewish Authoritarian governments can be as bad as NAZI
regimes. For every child that dies and leaves grieving relatives
there will be recruits to HAMAS-like organizations dedicated to
the revenge for this Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
Of course this is just my opinion based on facts I have
read about.
bliss
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Some Gazans may, indeed support Hamas. You'll need to support
your assertion that "all" Gazans do.
Obviously ALL Gazans aren't going to do anything but the whole reason
for the current angst is that when it comes to food aid to Gaza there
are two groups: (1) the UNRRA/UN group which delivers their food aid
to HAMAS who then sells it to Gazans (it's claimed at inflated prices
which I can't verify) but uses the proceeds to pay their troops etc
for what was SUPPOSED to (by donors) to be for FREE distribution to
Gazans, and the pro-Israeli group which refuses to deal with HAMAS and refuses to sell anything - it's strictly given away.
The problem is NOT lack of food - the Israelis say they are currently delivering to Gaza roughly twice what they gave before 7 Oct 2023 -
but rather distribution.
And the fact that HAMAS is selling food that is supposed to be freely
given is utterly shameful.
Bottom line is why is Israel giving ANYTHING? In WW2 America, Britain
and the other Allied countries were very generous to Germans but NOT
until after the Germans had surrendered. HAMAS is still fighting and
holding hostages so why is Israel giving them anything? Gaza can have
peace any time HAMAS wants it - thus far they DON'T - and it's NOT
"genocide" for the Israelis to withhold food aid before there's a
ceasefire. It seems to me all the Israelis giving them food now is
extending the war not shortening it.
As has Washington <>
"Hatcheries have operated in Washington State for more than a century, >beginning with a facility on the Kalama River in 1895."
On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 08:57:04 -0700, Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
As has Washington <>
"Hatcheries have operated in Washington State for more than a century, >beginning with a facility on the Kalama River in 1895."
I should know the answer to this given my father and grandfather were
in the fishing industry but how far south does the Pacific Salmon go?
I know it exists in Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca but
does it go as far south as the mouth of the Columbia River? (Which for non-"northwesters" is the WA/OR boundary between Portland and the sea)
On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 08:57:04 -0700, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
As has Washington <>
"Hatcheries have operated in Washington State for more than a century, >>beginning with a facility on the Kalama River in 1895."
I should know the answer to this given my father and grandfather were
in the fishing industry but how far south does the Pacific Salmon go?
I know it exists in Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca but
does it go as far south as the mouth of the Columbia River? (Which for >non-"northwesters" is the WA/OR boundary between Portland and the sea)
On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 08:57:04 -0700, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
As has Washington <>
"Hatcheries have operated in Washington State for more than a century, >>beginning with a facility on the Kalama River in 1895."
I should know the answer to this given my father and grandfather were
in the fishing industry but how far south does the Pacific Salmon go?
I know it exists in Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca but
does it go as far south as the mouth of the Columbia River? (Which for >non-"northwesters" is the WA/OR boundary between Portland and the sea)
Pacific salmon runs reach central california. The Klamath, near
the Oregon/California border, is noted for salmon. The Sacramento river, >(Golden Gate) has four annual chinook runs. Further south, the Pajaro river has
mainly steelhead, although there are historic records of Chinook
being caught (Pajaro is at the center of Monterey Bay).
My understanding has always been that the "fish ladders" around the
dams on the Columbia were put in for the salmon.
This wasn't sentimentality: the salmon fishery is a /major/ part of
the economy. Keeping the runs going was vital.
IIRC, the Columbia (before the dams) was THE salmon fishery on the west >coast. My brief research in Wikipedia articles indicate that the
Sacramento River (which empties into San Francisco Bay) and other rivers >between it and the Columbia have (or had) salmon fisheries.
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 08:34:24 -0700, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
My understanding has always been that the "fish ladders" around the
dams on the Columbia were put in for the salmon.
This wasn't sentimentality: the salmon fishery is a /major/ part of
the economy. Keeping the runs going was vital.
Absolutely - which is why I've said Judge Boldt is so hated for what
may or may not have been a legal decision but was environmentally >catastrophic.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 25:41:09 |
| Calls: | 12,106 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,183 |
