Concept of God in Islam
|
|
Thread rating:  |
abdo911 - 12 Nov 2007 07:34 GMT WAMY Series: On Islam No.9.Introduction God's Attributes The Oneness of God The Believer's Attitude Introduction It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God. Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender. This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word "god," which can be made plural, as in "gods," or made feminine, as in "goddess." It is interesting to notice that Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and a sister language of Arabic.The One true God is a reflection of the unique concept that Islam associates with God. To a Muslim, Allah is the Almighty Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Who is similar to nothing, and nothing is comparable to Him. The Prophet Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries about Allah; the answer came directly from God Himself in the form of a short chapter of the Qur'an, which is considered to be the essence of the unity or the motto of monotheism. This is chapter 112, which reads:" In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone".Some non-Muslims allege that God in Islam is a stern and cruel God who demands to be obeyed fully and is not loving and kind. Nothing could be farther from the truth than this allegation. It is enough to know that, with the exception of one, each of the 114 chapters of the Qur'an begins with the verse " In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate". In one of the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), we are told that " God is more loving and kind than a mother to her dear child".On the other hand, God is also Just. Hence, evildoers and sinners must have their share of punishment, and the virtuous must have God's bounties and favors. Actually, God's attribute of Mercy has full manifestation in His attribute of Justice. People suffering throughout their lives for His sake should not receive similar treatment from their Lord as people who oppress and exploit others their whole lives. Expecting similar treatment for them would amount to negating the very belief in the accountability of man in the Hereafter and thereby negate all the incentives for a moral and virtuous life in this world. The following Qur'anic verses are very clear and straightforward in this respect. Verily, for the Righteous are gardens of Delight, in the Presence of their Lord. Shall We then treat the people of Faith like the people of Sin? What is the matter with you? How judge you? Islam rejects characterizing God in any human form or depicting Him as favoring certain individuals or nations on the basis of wealth, power or race. He created the human-beings as equals. They may distinguish themselves and get His favor through virtue and piety only. The concepts that God rested on the seventh day of creation, that God wrestled with one of His soldiers, that God is an envious plotter against mankind, and that God is incarnate in any human being are considered blasphemy from the Islamic point of view. The unique usage of Allah as a personal name of God is a reflection of Islam's emphasis on the purity of the belief in God that is the essence of the message of all God's messengers. Because of this, Islam considers associating any deity or personality with God as a deadly sin that God will never forgive, despite the fact that He may forgive all other sins. The Creator must be of a different nature from the things created because if He is of the same nature as they are, He will be temporal and will therefore need a maker. It follows that nothing is like Him. If the maker is not temporal, then he must be eternal. But if he is eternal, he cannot be caused, and if nothing caused Him to come into existence, nothing outside Him causes Him to continue to exist, which means that he must be self-sufficient. And if He does not depend on anything for the continuance of His own existence, then this existence can have no end. The Creator is therefore eternal and everlasting: "He is the First and the Last". He is Self-sufficient or Self-subsistent, or, to use a Qur'anic term, Al-Qayyum The Creator does not create only in the sense of bringing things into being, He. also preserves them and takes them out of existence and is the ultimate cause of whatever happens to them. " God is the Creator of everything. He is the guardian over everything. Unto Him belong the keys of the heavens and the earth" (39:62-63). " No creature is there crawling on the earth, but its provision rests on God. He knows its lodging place and its repository" (11:16). God's Attributes If the Creator is Eternal and Everlasting, then His attributes must also be eternal and everlasting. He should not lose any of His attributes nor acquire new ones. If this is so, then his attributes are absolute. Can there be more than one Creator with such absolute attributes? Can there be, for example, two absolutely powerful Creators? A moment's thought shows that this is not feasible. The Qur'an summarizes this argument in the following verses:" God has not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god with Him: for then each god would have taken of that which he created and some of them would have risen up over others" (23:91). " And why, were there gods in earth and heaven other than God, they (heaven and earth) would surely go to ruin" (21:22). The Oneness of God The Qur'an reminds us of the falsity of all alleged gods. To the worshippers of man-made objects it asks:" Do you worship what you have carved yourself" (37:95). " Or have you taken unto yourself others beside Him to be your protectors, even such as have no power either for good or for harm to themselves" (13:16). To the worshippers of heavenly bodies it cites the story of Abraham:" When night outspread over him, he saw a star and said: This is my Lord. But when it set, he said: I love not the setters. When he saw the moon rising, he said: This is my Lord. But when it set, he said: If my Lord does not guide me, I shall surely be of the people gone astray. When he saw the sun rising, he said: This is my Lord; this is greater. But when it set, he said: O my people, surely I quit that which you associate, I have turned my face to Him who originated the heavens and the earth; a man of pure faith, I am not one of the idolators" (6:76-79). The Believer's Attitude In order to be a Muslim, that is, to surrender oneself to God, it is necessary to believe in the oneness of God, in the sense of His being the only Creator, Preserver, Nourisher, etc. But this belief, later called Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah, is not enough. Many of the idolators knew and believed that only the Supreme God could do all this. But this was not enough to make them Muslims. To tawhid ar-rububiyyah, one must add tawhid al-'uluhiyyah. That is, one acknowledges the fact that it is God alone who deserves to be worshipped, and thus abstains from worshipping any other thing or being. Having achieved this knowledge of the one true God, man should constantly have faith in Him, and should allow nothing to induce him to deny truth. When faith enters a person's heart, it causes certain mental states that result in certain actions. Taken together, these mental states and actions are the proof for the true faith. The Prophet said:" Faith is that which resides firmly in the heart and which is proved by deeds". Foremost among those mental stated is the feeling of gratitude towards God, which could be said to be the essence of ibada (worship). The feeling of gratitude is so important that a non-believer is called 'kafir', which means 'one who denies a truth' and also 'one who is ungrateful'. A believer loves, and is grateful to God for the bounties He bestowed upon him, but being aware of the fact that his good deeds, whether mental or physical, are far from being commensurate with Divine favors, he is always anxious lest God should punish him, here or in the Hereafter. He, therefore, fears Him, surrenders himself to Him and serves Him with great humility. One cannot be in such a mental state without being almost all the time mindful of God. Remembering God is thus the life force of faith, without which it fades and withers away. The Qur'an tries to promote this feeling of gratitude by repeating the attributes of God very frequently. We find most of these attributes mentioned together in the following verses of the Qur'an:" He is God; there is no god but He. He is the Knower of the unseen and the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate. He is God; there is no god but He. He is the King, the All-Holy, the All-Peace, the Guardian of the Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All- Compeller, the All-Sublime. Glory be to God, above that they associate! He is God, the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him belong the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the earth magnifies Him; He is the Almighty, the All-Wise" (59:22-24). " There is no god but He, the Living, the Everlasting. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave? He knows what lies before them, and what is after them, and they comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He wills. His throne comprises the heavens and earth. The preserving of them oppresses Him not; He is the All-High, the All-Glorious" (2:255). People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. " The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not "Three". Refrain; better it is for you. God is only one God. Glory be to Him - (He is) above having a son" (4:171).
Earle Jones - 19 Nov 2007 06:04 GMT > WAMY Series: On Islam No.9.Introduction > God's Attributes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are > used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities.... * Are you insulting my God? My God is Babalu aye, brought to the Cubans by the Bantu African.
Your God is false. Only Babalu aye is the true God.
earle *
Peter Moylan - 19 Nov 2007 14:03 GMT > Your God is false. Only Babalu aye is the true God. Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false" clause.
To get at the truth, you have to ask "which god (if any) has ever shown an interest in human affairs?"
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Duncanson - 19 Nov 2007 17:10 GMT >> Your God is false. Only Babalu aye is the true God. > >Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false" clause. > >To get at the truth, you have to ask "which god (if any) has ever shown >an interest in human affairs?" All those gods which need to be appeased by sacrifices.
Of course the devotees might have misunderstood the nature of things.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Robert Lieblich - 20 Nov 2007 01:45 GMT > > Your God is false. Only Babalu aye is the true God. > > Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false" clause. > > To get at the truth, you have to ask "which god (if any) has ever shown > an interest in human affairs?" I can think of one, if you believe the Hebrew Scriptures (aka Old Testament). Of course, the fact of belief is prerequisite to the determination of intervention. And yet many people say that the intervention is what led them to believe.
Chicken? Egg?
Father Ignatius - 20 Nov 2007 07:41 GMT >> > Your God is false. Only Babalu aye is the true God. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Testament). Of course, the fact of belief is prerequisite > to the Covered very readably, and in detail, by Joseph ("Catch-22") Heller in _God Knows_ , starting with Abishag the Shunammite.
> determination of intervention. And yet many people say > that the > intervention is what led them to believe. > > Chicken? Egg? Mark Brader - 20 Nov 2007 11:32 GMT > Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false" clause. Those featuring many gods, like in classical Rome, would seem more likely to admit the existence of others.
 Signature Mark Brader, Toronto | In the affairs of this world men are saved, msb@vex.net | not by faith, but by the want of it. --Franklin
Peter Moylan - 20 Nov 2007 12:00 GMT >> Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false" clause. > > Those featuring many gods, like in classical Rome, would seem more > likely to admit the existence of others. Point taken. Indeed, one of the great strengths of the Roman Empire was that, as it expanded, it allowed the absorbed people to keep their own gods.
Now that I think of it, the theology of the early Jews, as expounded in the Bible, clearly accepted that there were different gods for different tribes. There's plenty of "our god is better than your god" in the stories, but I can't recall any examples of claims that "your god doesn't exist".
Faced with this evidence, I'd better withdraw my original statement. I wasn't thinking clearly enough.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
The Grammer Genious - 20 Nov 2007 13:40 GMT > <...> > Now that I think of it, the theology of the early Jews, as expounded in > the Bible, clearly accepted that there were different gods for different > tribes. There's plenty of "our god is better than your god" in the > stories, but I can't recall any examples of claims that "your god > doesn't exist". <...> Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and at least have been civil to the other gods, sort of like a wife toward her husband's ex-wives.
Father Ignatius - 20 Nov 2007 14:05 GMT > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to > command that there be no other gods before Him. He might > have shown a little graciousness and at least have been > civil to the other gods, sort of like a wife toward her > husband's ex-wives. Are we talking Jehovah, here, or the gentle-Jesus-meek-and-mild, loving, forgiving brand, which allus seemed to me to be[have like] a different entity. That is, did we change gods, or did God change, in a sort of pre-modern example of Personal Growth?
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 20 Nov 2007 18:12 GMT > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to > > command that there be no other gods before Him. He might [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That is, did we change gods, or did God change, in a sort of > pre-modern example of Personal Growth? It's true that Jesus is not depicted as killing anybody, but Christianity, not Judaism, has the idea of eternal torment.
-- Jerry Friedman
Paul Wolff - 20 Nov 2007 20:07 GMT >On Nov 20, 7:05 am, "Father Ignatius" ><FatherIgnat...@ANTISPAMananzi.co.za> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >It's true that Jesus is not depicted as killing anybody, but >Christianity, not Judaism, has the idea of eternal torment. But both parties can accept Usenet, and the Eternally Unanswered Questions of past SDCs.
I don't think that Judaism can quite wash its hands of notions of eternal distress. How about the Book of Enoch? I'm only going on secondary sources here, but it is reported that it was written by members of the Hasidim between 100 and 200 years before Christianity, and contained visions of Heaven and Hell where the prayers of the righteous for vengeance upon sinners would be granted with a dishing-out of eternal damnation: "Ye sinners shall be cursed for ever, and ye shall have no peace." I realise that this text can't be mainstream, not least because it disappeared until its resurrection two hundred years ago, but Judaic it must be.
 Signature Paul
Skitt - 20 Nov 2007 21:08 GMT >> It's true that Jesus is not depicted as killing anybody, but >> Christianity, not Judaism, has the idea of eternal torment. >> > But both parties can accept Usenet, and the Eternally Unanswered > Questions of past SDCs. Speaking of that, aren't there enough Eternally Unanswered Questions of past SDCs to put together the next SDC?
There is, of course, the "Eternally" part ...
 Signature Skitt now feeling skittish about that
Robert Lieblich - 21 Nov 2007 02:54 GMT [ ... ]
> I don't think that Judaism can quite wash its hands of notions of > eternal distress. How about the Book of Enoch? I'm only going on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > least because it disappeared until its resurrection two hundred years > ago, but Judaic it must be. Hasidism originated with the Baal Shem Tov in Eastern Europe in the 18th Century. It's clear you're thinking of some other name for whichever group you mean, but I can't get the right synapses to fire.
In general, the Hebrew God seems to mature as his people matures.[1] I am about as far from being a Bible scholar as can be imagined, but I have heard that many fundamentalist Christians get around some of the apparent barbarity of the Hebrew Scriptures (which they call the Old Testament) by declaring that the Christian Scriptures (which they call the New Testament) supersede them. That's how they exempt themselves from all that tough stuff in Leviticus about not eating pork and marrying brothers' widows. Why that also doesn't exempt them from enforcing the ban on homosexuality I have never quite understood, although, as I said, I'm quite ignorant of most of this, and they probably have a reason that satisfies them.
[1] Yeah, "matures." Look it up if you can't figure it out.
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 21 Nov 2007 06:20 GMT > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 18th Century. It's clear you're thinking of some other name for > whichever group you mean, but I can't get the right synapses to fire. ...
If you believe <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Essene#Scholarly_discussion>, the Talmud mentions a sect called Hasidim. It was connected or not connected with the Essenes, who were or were not the people who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, which include (really) excerpts from the /Book of Enoch/. Modern Hasidim do or do not believe that they are a revival or continuation of the ancient group with the same name.
-- Jerry Friedman is leaving the Christian theology to the Christians, for today.
Roland Hutchinson - 21 Nov 2007 08:01 GMT > If you believe <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Essene#Scholarly_discussion>, the Talmud mentions a sect called [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not believe that they are a revival or continuation of the ancient > group with the same name. I believe http://en.wikipedia.org because it testifies to its own inerrancy.
 Signature Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Father Ignatius - 21 Nov 2007 07:46 GMT > I am about as far from being a Bible scholar as can be > imagined, but I [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and they > probably have a reason that satisfies them. As it happens, only last night I was listening to a diatribe[1] by an Englishman on the nature of The Red-State Voter, who seems daily to be taking the US as a whole further to the RR. He asserted confidently that, although "these people" let on to be guided by scripture, their actual Bible knowledge, upon examination, turns out to be nugatory[4], suggesting that a tranche of voters too big to shake a stick at has delegated the task of forming opinion to monotribal shamans. If he is as correct as he is self-righteous, this would be an explanation of your observation.
[1] Cognate with "diadem", hence "The Six Lost Diatribes of Israel"[3].
[2] "Religious Right". What else?
[3] One of which, I understand, was the Black Jews and the Boers, and the other five of which don't matter, being Foreign. WMO.
[4] Sweet and sticky and rapped in wrice paper.
Father Ignatius - 21 Nov 2007 07:51 GMT > In general, the Hebrew God seems to mature as his people > matures.[1] "People" is the singular of "peoples"?! Oh, dear Lord, I hope Mr. Cunningham doesn't see that one!
> [1] Yeah, "matures." Look it up if you can't figure it > out. Some Buddy - 21 Nov 2007 08:36 GMT > <snip>
> the Hebrew God seems to mature as his people matures.[1]
> <snip>
> [1] Yeah, "matures." Look it up if you can't figure it out. Okay I looked it up. I found that 'people' with the meaning 'tribe' is singular just as 'family' is singular. But, like 'family,' 'people' can be used in a plural sense in which case it works better with a plural verb.
The tribe that is being referred to as a people does not mature as a monolithic entity. Its members mature, some at a different rate than others. That is why even though 'mature' or 'matures' would be all right in theory, 'matures' is better.
That is good because the singular verb with 'people' seems so strange that it is a distraction for the reader and it begs to be defended as Robert Lieblich has defiantly done, thereby compounding the distraction.
Some Buddy - 21 Nov 2007 10:09 GMT > > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 'mature' or 'matures' would be all right in theory, > 'matures' is better. I meant to say 'mature' is better.
> That is good because the singular verb with 'people' seems > so strange that it is a distraction for the reader and it > begs to be defended as Robert Lieblich has defiantly done, > thereby compounding the distraction. Mike Lyle - 21 Nov 2007 13:35 GMT >>> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I meant to say 'mature' is better. [...]
Well, you were wrong, then. You aren't required to /believe/ the original statement.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Some Buddy - 21 Nov 2007 16:14 GMT > >>> <snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Well, you were wrong, then. You aren't required to /believe/ the > original statement. To let me understand your position better, please comment on the sentence
| The family are in good health. Do you insist on a singular verb with any nouns that is formally singular regardless of whether or not the result makes sense?
Do you not believe that a collective noun can take either a singular or plural verb depending upon the sense?
I would say 'The geographic community are convinced that the earth is flat.' Would you insist on 'community is'? How would that choice depend upon whether or not I believe some people think the earth is flat? The essential point is that the belief in a flat earth is a matter for an individual to decide upon.
Whether a tribe matures or mature has nothing whatever to do with what I believe about a Hebrew god and the maturity of a people.
Some Buddy - 21 Nov 2007 16:26 GMT > > >>> <snip> > > >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Do you insist on a singular verb with any > nouns noun
> that is > formally singular regardless of whether or not the result [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > with what I believe about a Hebrew god and the maturity of a > people. Mike Lyle - 21 Nov 2007 19:45 GMT >>>>> <snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > formally singular regardless of whether or not the result > makes sense? No.
> Do you not believe that a collective noun can take either a > singular or plural verb depending upon the sense? I do so believe.
> I would say 'The geographic community are convinced that the > earth is flat.' Would you insist on 'community is'? How > would that choice depend upon whether or not I believe some > people think the earth is flat? The essential point is that > the belief in a flat earth is a matter for an individual to > decide upon. Irrelevant. Well, not irrelevant: I should have said "not analogous". In our case, Bob has made it clear that he means what the sentence means when you use a singular verb, not what it means when you use a plural one.
> Whether a tribe matures or mature has nothing whatever to do > with what I believe about a Hebrew god and the maturity of a > people. I was covering the possibility, which was real, that you might, by no means unreasonably, think it did.
I think that's a wrap.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Robert Lieblich - 21 Nov 2007 23:25 GMT > > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > begs to be defended as Robert Lieblich has defiantly done, > thereby compounding the distraction. You're new here, right?
Some Buddy - 22 Nov 2007 00:46 GMT > > > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 'mature' or 'matures' would be all right in theory, > > 'matures' is better. I followed up almost immediately ( See http://tinyurl.com/384nfg ) to correct my erroneous '"matures" is better" to "'mature' is better.'
> > That is good because the singular verb with 'people' seems > > so strange that it is a distraction for the reader and it > > begs to be defended as Robert Lieblich has defiantly done, > > thereby compounding the distraction. > > You're new here, right? Let's say I am; then what?
Robert Lieblich - 22 Nov 2007 04:06 GMT > > > > <snip> > > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Let's say I am; then what? Then it helps explain why you look so clueless.
Cluelessness is no stigma, however. We all started out more or less clueless here. I was a lot further out in left field when I started posting to AUE than you appear to be now. You'll either catch up or give up. I managed the former. If I could, you can.
As for "people matures," that's exactly what I meant to convey -- and yes, defiantly (mostly mock defiantly, ackcherly; regulars know that tone of voice). If you disagree with the notion as I expressed it, feel free. I hold no patent on the truth. If, however, you disagree with the means I chose to express it, you're off-base. I knew exactly what I meant to say and I said it. That you have a different idea and necessarily use different words does not at all reflect on how well I conveyed my idea.
On the issue of whose idea is right, we disagree. Life will go on.
Some Buddy - 22 Nov 2007 13:09 GMT > > > > > <snip> > > > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > necessarily use different words does not at all reflect on how well I > conveyed my idea. Your otherwise persuasive remarks have one weak spot that is not necessarily fatal but is damaging. You said "Look it up." Here again, for convenient reference, is what you said:
| the Hebrew God seems to mature as his people matures.[1] | | ... | [1] Yeah, "matures." Look it up if you can't figure it out. At that point I could only understand that I was being advised to look up the rules for agreement between subject and verb. I had to assume that you were using a singular verb because you had a subject that could be construed to be singular. That was the simplest interpretation of your remarks and someone's principle says that the simplest interpretation is most often right. What did you expect people to think when you wrote "Look it up"? What did you want them to look up?
Now if you had written something more like
| [1] Yeah, "matures." I know there are times when a | collective noun takes a singular verb and other times a | plural, but I have a good reason to choose the singular | in this case. then people would have known that you weren't blindly insisting on agreement between an apparently singular noun and its verb.
But then the remark "Look it up" would have made no sense. What could we look up to learn more about your motivation?
> On the issue of whose idea is right, we disagree. Life will go on. And tempus keeps on fugiting.
Father Ignatius - 22 Nov 2007 13:55 GMT > Your otherwise persuasive remarks have one weak spot that > is > not necessarily fatal but is damaging. You said "Look it > up." Okay, spelling it out for you: what you picked up was a throw-away remark loaded with connotations for the long-timers here (and there are people posting in this group who have been hanging around here, on and off and in one guise or another, for the better part of twenty years[1,2]) that refers to mega-threads this group has suffered in the past that are testimony to the stubbornness of a prominent and opinionated long-time poster in this group who has some strong - nay, rigid - ideas in this area. These things are not spelled out, because LITS.
If you want to know more exactly what I'm talking about, and feel some sort of masochistic impulse, you might refer (_for example_!) to the archives of this group and check out the thread '"people" is not the plural of "person" [was: Re: African American]' that got started on Sep 21 2002 and continued for 1314 posts.
While we are here, you might also get similar tics if you mention (_for example_!) "rifle", "sandwiches", "rare" and "redd" (sic). There's a lot of history in this group.
[1] I nearly said "morn tenures" but, on reflection, decided that wouldn't be clear.
[2] and I suddenly realise that I yam one
Some Buddy - 22 Nov 2007 17:52 GMT > > Your otherwise persuasive remarks have one weak spot that > > is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > strong - nay, rigid - ideas in this area. These things are > not spelled out, because LITS. An Internet Acronyms glossary at http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/?lookup=L doesn't tell me what LITS means. I assume this is another manifestation of the attitude of your hangers-around who want to keep a Usenet group like it is a select clique. 'To hell with a general readership; we few know what we mean.'
> If you want to know more exactly what I'm talking about, and > feel some sort of masochistic impulse, you might refer (_for > example_!) to the archives of this group and check out the > thread '"people" is not the plural of "person" [was: Re: > African American]' that got started on Sep 21 2002 and > continued for 1314 posts. Okay I have looked at that 'thread' (and I still do not know what is the point of your posting except that it appears you have taken the opportunity to vent some sort of personal grudge).
Here's the entire text of a typical posting in the thread by Mike Lyle dated October 4th:
| It's kind of you to stick up for me, but I meant my | ignorantish use of the word "weight" for things outside | the Earth's gravitational field. I don't know these | things, but isn't there some kind of parallel between | weight/mass and accident/essence or something rather | like that? The same mass can have different weights? I suspect that if I counted the number of posts in that thread that had anything to do with the relationship of people to person those posts would be in a substantial minority.
As for stubbornness and opionionatedness, there were 106 posters in the thread. Was only one of them stubborn and opinionated? I suspect not. Stubbornness has to meet stubbornness to stay alive, and I doubt that there are many of us who are not opinionated to some extent.
the Omrud - 22 Nov 2007 18:03 GMT sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ...
> > > Your otherwise persuasive remarks have one weak spot that > > > is [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Usenet group like it is a select clique. 'To hell with a > general readership; we few know what we mean.' In this case, it's not. I have never seen this acronym before, but I can figure out that it probably means Life Is Too Short.
 Signature David
Some Buddy - 22 Nov 2007 18:20 GMT > sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ... <snip>
> > > These things are > > > not spelled out, because LITS. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In this case, it's not. I have never seen this acronym before, but I > can figure out that it probably means Life Is Too Short. That seems possible but what is supposed to be gained by making people try to figure out what an abbreviation stands for instead of simply writing out what you want to say? Does it make sense to make a thousand people take say ten seconds apiece (total about 3 hours) to puzzle out an abbreviation in order to save the poster the few seconds he would need to write the meaning in the first place? Would I have to be one of the select few in order to understand that way of thinking?
Skitt - 22 Nov 2007 18:24 GMT > the Omrud said: >> sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ... >>> "Father Ignatius" said:
>>>> These things are >>>> not spelled out, because LITS. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > one of the select few in order to understand that way of > thinking? No, but being a quick wit helps.
 Signature Skitt not as quick as some
Some Buddy - 22 Nov 2007 18:33 GMT > > the Omrud said: > >> sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > No, but being a quick wit helps. That does not address my question. Quick wit or not why should I be required to exercise whatever wit I have to puzzle out an abbreviation that could just as well have been written out to begin with?
And is there something witty about writing LITS in place of life is too short? Are you sure? Would it be a hit on Comedy Central?
Skitt - 22 Nov 2007 18:40 GMT > "Skitt" said: >>> the Omrud said: >>>> sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ... >>>>> "Father Ignatius" said:
>>>>>> These things are >>>>>> not spelled out, because LITS. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > puzzle out an abbreviation that could just as well have been > written out to begin with? There was no such requirement. Puzzling it out was entirely voluntary.
> And is there something witty about writing LITS in place of > life is too short? I didn't say that it is.
> Are you sure? Sure of what? I think you missed the point of my remark. You were expected to be the one with the quick wit. Oh, well ...
> Would it be a hit on Comedy Central? Why would it?
 Signature Skitt I may not understand what you say, but I'll defend to your death my right to deny it. --Albert Alligator
the Omrud - 22 Nov 2007 18:25 GMT sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ...
> > sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ... > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > making people try to figure out what an abbreviation stands > for instead of simply writing out what you want to say? I suspect it was done because life is too short.
> Does > it make sense to make a thousand people take say ten seconds [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > one of the select few in order to understand that way of > thinking? I thought Usenet was a voluntary, nay, volunteer, activity.
 Signature David
Nick Atty - 23 Nov 2007 07:18 GMT >> sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ... > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >one of the select few in order to understand that way of >thinking? Silly question. Where do you think the Internet Acronyms in that list came from in the first place?
 Signature On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon
Some Buddy - 23 Nov 2007 08:19 GMT > >> sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ... > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Silly question. Where do you think the Internet Acronyms in that list > came from in the first place? Sillier question and completely irrelevant to my point. Whether or not an unnecessary abbreviation is in the list has nothing to do with the fact that the abbreviation can be a minor inconvenience to thousands of readers adding up to a substantial amount of total lost time. The difference between finding the abbreviation in a glossary and puzzling it out is only quantitative. Both ways the time in some amount is unnecessarily wasted.
I can see an abbreviation being somewhat justified if the poster is a hunt-and-peck typist whose every character entered is an ordeal to be endured. But if the poster has never learned to type, he is probably not of an intelligence level to make him worthwhile to read.
Mike Lyle - 23 Nov 2007 13:34 GMT [...]
> Sillier question and completely irrelevant to my point. > Whether or not an unnecessary abbreviation is in the list [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it out is only quantitative. Both ways the time in some > amount is unnecessarily wasted. [...]
You're taking it all far too seriously. Those who enjoy working out crossword puzzle clues get a moment's amusement, while others can either ask or ignore. The purport of the message was clear enough without the "LITS" bit.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
CDB - 23 Nov 2007 15:13 GMT [internet abbreviations]
> I can see an abbreviation being somewhat justified if the > poster is a hunt-and-peck typist whose every character > entered is an ordeal to be endured. But if the poster has > never learned to type, he is probably not of an intelligence > level to make him worthwhile to read. <raises hand> (NTTAWWNBOAILTMOWTR) When I'm not in the mood to puzzle a new one out, or google for it, or ask about it, I ignore it and pass on. Saves no end of time.
Oleg Lego - 23 Nov 2007 19:53 GMT >> >> sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ... >> > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >it out is only quantitative. Both ways the time in some >amount is unnecessarily wasted. Your choice. Waste the time or waste the time not.
>I can see an abbreviation being somewhat justified if the >poster is a hunt-and-peck typist whose every character >entered is an ordeal to be endured. But if the poster has >never learned to type, he is probably not of an intelligence >level to make him worthwhile to read. Intelligence has nothing at all to do with typing skills.
Middle Saxon - 22 Nov 2007 23:08 GMT >Your otherwise persuasive remarks have one weak spot that is >not necessarily fatal but is damaging. You said "Look it [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >But then the remark "Look it up" would have made no sense. >What could we look up to learn more about your motivation? Maybe the excellent, urbane and learned Mr Lieblich was referring to the FAQ of this newsgroup. I snipped this from one of the regularly posted mini-FAQs:
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Group nouns: singular or plural? "company is" -v- "company are" ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of a plural verb after a singular noun denoting a group of persons (known as a noun of multitude) is commoner in the U.K. than in the U.S.
American usage is normally to treat such nouns as singular, unless there are other influences involved:
"The team plays well." "The Giants play well."
In the U.K. the context often indicates whether the group or the individuals within it are being referred to:
"My family is on holiday." "My family are arguing."
The U.K. assumption is that the group went away on vacation, but that the individuals are having a heated debate. Where there is no obvious clue from the context, U.K. English speakers may use either singular or plural constructions. You may find this discussed in style guides under "notional agreement." ___________________________________________________________
Although the E, U & L Mr Lieblich is an American, I believe, it is likely that long exposure to the cosmopolitan membership of AUE has made him more accepting of British practice.
Some Buddy - 23 Nov 2007 00:20 GMT > >Your otherwise persuasive remarks have one weak spot that is > >not necessarily fatal but is damaging. You said "Look it [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > the FAQ of this newsgroup. I snipped this from one of the regularly > posted mini-FAQs: I suspect that nearly everyone here knows very well all that is in that mini-FAQ entry. The question to be answered from what Mr Lieblich said was not to be answered there. It was safe to assume that he knew everything in the mini-FAQ entry as well as I do. The question was given those guidelines why did he think they pointed to a singular verb in his particular example. Whether you are American or British the choice needs to be made. He seemed to be saying we could answer the question of why he made his choice by looking it up somewhere. We could not.
<snip unnecessary quotation from mini-FAQ>
Anyway I think a better discussion of the subject including the US UK difference is in the FAQ Supplement at <http://www.alt-usage-english.org/groupnames.html> where there are words from both the highly respected erstwhile AUE regular Markus Laker and B. and C. Evans's Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage.
> Although the E, U & L Mr Lieblich is an American, I believe, it is > likely that long exposure to the cosmopolitan membership of AUE has > made him more accepting of British practice. But if you want to think strictly of UK vs US style which I think is not the right thing to do Mr. Lieblich's choice was not British but American. So you have it backwards.
Mike Lyle - 23 Nov 2007 13:50 GMT [...]
> I suspect that nearly everyone here knows very well all that > is in that mini-FAQ entry. The question to be answered from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > answer the question of why he made his choice by looking it > up somewhere. We could not. [...]
You surprise me. (Well, you don't; but you would have a day or two ago.) The distinct meanings of "people", which is the crux here, are easy enough to look up all over the place --though I don't really believe you needed to.
Anyhow, you've introduced yourself. Now enjoy the other discussions.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Some Buddy - 23 Nov 2007 16:15 GMT > [...] > > I suspect that nearly everyone here knows very well all that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > enough to look up all over the place --though I don't really believe you > needed to. I did not think that was the crux. I thought the crux was given the well-known fact that people can and first did mean tribe or nation and could with that meaning be used with either a singular or a plural verb which of the two was better in Robert Lieblich's assertion?
I choose to believe that a tribe's members mature individually not the tribe itself.
I understand it was historically the fact that people while a singular noun referring to a group could be used with a plural verb that led to its being used as a substitute for the formal plural of person.
> Anyhow, you've introduced yourself. Now enjoy the other discussions. I have about decided that this newsgroup is not a friendly one and that I should look elsewhere for enjoyment. I do not doubt that there are those here who will not be saddened by that news.
tony cooper - 23 Nov 2007 17:31 GMT >I have about decided that this newsgroup is not a friendly >one and that I should look elsewhere for enjoyment. I do >not doubt that there are those here who will not be saddened >by that news. That's not at all correct. There's a certain amount of fitting in required, but - overall - the group is quite friendly. That's not to say that certain regulars in the group will not bite your head off, but the group itself is almost warm and fuzzy at times.
Unless you start off on the wrong foot, and continue to use that foot as your lead foot, responses to your post will be based on the post itself; content over contributor.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
CDB - 23 Nov 2007 17:53 GMT [consolation of the unappreciated]
> Unless you start off on the wrong foot, and continue to use that > foot as your lead foot, responses to your post will be based on the > post itself; content over contributor. Was that "leed foot" or "ledd foot"? (One extra point will be awarded for "Both".)
Father Ignatius - 23 Nov 2007 19:43 GMT > [consolation of the unappreciated] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Was that "leed foot" or "ledd foot"? (One extra point > will be awarded for "Both".) Shees, dude. Enough with the invoking, awready; you're making me nervous. We need one o' them regulars to bite your head off, I think.
Mike Lyle - 23 Nov 2007 21:37 GMT >> [consolation of the unappreciated] >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > making me nervous. We need one o' them regulars to bite > your head off, I think. But that's a rare occurrence.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
CDB - 24 Nov 2007 00:25 GMT >>>> [your lead foot]
>>> Was that "leed foot" or "ledd foot"? (One extra point >>> will be awarded for "Both".)
>> Shees, dude. Enough with the invoking, awready; you're >> making me nervous. We need one o' them regulars to bite >> your head off, I think. One o' them just didn't? But I really wanted to know. And did you realise that the buddy is posting as more than one person? I say, 'voke 'im.
> But that's a rare occurrence. OK I go way long time kindle BBQ come back when head cooked to point.
Father Ignatius - 24 Nov 2007 16:41 GMT CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca> het geskryf:
>>>>> [your lead foot] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > One o' them just didn't? But I really wanted to know. I yust realised that no-one answered you. I believe Mr. Cooper meant leed foot, and that certainly was its surface meaning, leaving it up to the the rest of us to surmise that ledd was what was in his heart.
> And did you realise that the buddy is posting as more > than one person? No. Hadn't thought about it.
 Signature Nat
-----
"I share Americans' nostalgia for an era when you not only could tell a man by the cut of his jib, but the jib industry hadn't yet fled to Guangdong."
---Stephen Colbert, /I Am America/ (/And So Can You!/)
Bob Cunningham - 24 Nov 2007 01:10 GMT [...]
> > We need one o' them regulars to bite > > your head off, I think. > > But that's a rare occurrence. What's a rare occurrence? That he thinks?
Oleg Lego - 23 Nov 2007 20:05 GMT >> [...] >> > I suspect that nearly everyone here knows very well all that [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >not doubt that there are those here who will not be saddened >by that news. Tell you what. You wander into a meeting of bird watchers, proclaim loudly that you think the Black Capped Chickadee ought to be called a Grey Breasted Dweezil, and when you are met with objections, insist that you are right, pretend that you don't understand any of the arguments used by the objectors, and finally, proclaim that You just wanted to state your objection to the Black Capped Chickadee.
Then tell me if bird watchers are an unfriendly bunch.
Peter Moylan - 21 Nov 2007 09:36 GMT > In general, the Hebrew God seems to mature as his people matures. I'm inclined to believe that this is true for all gods. When man creates gods in his own image, he uses the current model of human society. In times long gone, the nobility consisted of real bastards; basically, they were the neighbourhood bullies who succeeded in taking over the neighbourhood. It was therefore assumed that the gods would have similar characteristics. It's pretty clear that the Greek gods were frivolous and amoral, and that the Norse gods were mostly interested in rape and pillage. As humans have become more civilised, we have better role models like George^W ... well, I can't think of a good example for now, but the concept of "noblesse oblige" seems to apply to newly invented gods.
If ever intelligent life appears on Earth, we can expect to find gods with a more reasonable sense of morality and ethics.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Paul Wolff - 21 Nov 2007 19:59 GMT >Paul Wolff wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >18th Century. It's clear you're thinking of some other name for >whichever group you mean, but I can't get the right synapses to fire. This has been answered by Jerry Friedman downstream. I was thinking exactly of the name Hasidim (said to be precursors, or possibly forerunners, of the Pharisees).
>In general, the Hebrew God seems to mature as his people matures.[1] >I am about as far from being a Bible scholar as can be imagined, Shame. You could perhaps have helped with Sheol. Since this sentence occurs in the Wikipedia article on Sheol (only consulted in perversity) it can't possibly be true: "By the second century BC, Oral Torah observant Jews had come to believe that those in sheol awaited the resurrection either in comfort (in the bosom of Abraham) or in torment." Waiting for the resurrection may never turn out to have been eternal, but for those still waiting ... you just can't be sure, can you?
>but I >have heard that many fundamentalist Christians get around some of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >[1] Yeah, "matures." Look it up if you can't figure it out. Me?
 Signature Paul
Robert Lieblich - 21 Nov 2007 23:27 GMT [ ... ]
> >Hasidism originated with the Baal Shem Tov in Eastern Europe in the > >18th Century. It's clear you're thinking of some other name for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > exactly of the name Hasidim (said to be precursors, or possibly > forerunners, of the Pharisees). I confess to surprise. I confess also to having erred. Thanks to you and Jerry for the correction.
[ ... ]
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 24 Nov 2007 05:12 GMT > >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > it can't possibly be true: > "By the second century BC, Oral Torah observant Jews Tsk tsk tsk.
> had come to believe that those in sheol Tsk tsk tsk. Maybe I should fix those.
> awaited the resurrection either in > comfort (in the bosom of Abraham) or in torment." > Waiting for the resurrection may never turn out to have been eternal, > but for those still waiting ... you just can't be sure, can you? ...
Maybe you can be sure if someone tells you. "Welcome to Gehenna. You will be tormented here until the Resurrection, at which point you will be purified, annihilated, or tormented eternally, depending on which interpretation is correct."
Perhaps even more reliably, the Jewish Encyclopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com has substantial and confusing articles on Sheol, Gehenna, and Resurrection. I was wrong: among the contradictory opinions given in the Talmud is that the wicked will be punished eternally.
-- Jerry Friedman
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 21 Nov 2007 06:09 GMT > "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > least because it disappeared until its resurrection two hundred years > ago, but Judaic it must be. Okay, for at least a couple centuries, at least one group of Jews believed in eternal punishment--but the idea that God underwent some "personal growth" between Judaism and Christianity still won't work.
-- Jerry Friedman
Father Ignatius - 21 Nov 2007 07:56 GMT > Okay, for at least a couple centuries, at least one group > of Jews > believed in eternal punishment--but the idea that God > underwent some > "personal growth" between Judaism and Christianity still > won't work. [intrigued] Because?
Mike Lyle - 21 Nov 2007 13:23 GMT > <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4ce7ed34-8747-484c-9a63-9757a2200bf5@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> Okay, for at least a couple centuries, at least one group >> of Jews [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > [intrigued] Because? Because the doctrine of the Atonement looks like some kind of nervous collapse, not growth.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Paul Wolff - 21 Nov 2007 20:08 GMT >On Nov 20, 1:07 pm, Paul Wolff <bounc...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote: >> "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> That is, did we change gods, or did God change, in a sort of >> >> pre-modern example of Personal Growth? [...]
>> I don't think that Judaism can quite wash its hands of notions of >> eternal distress. How about the Book of Enoch? I'm only going on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >believed in eternal punishment--but the idea that God underwent some >"personal growth" between Judaism and Christianity still won't work. I have no interest in defending or upholding the 'personal growth' idea - only that the eternal punishment concept was pre-Christian in origin, and found in strands of Jewish thought that seem to have anticipated or even inspired other Christian teachings too.
Robert Henry Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English: with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books. 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913). Volume 1 contains the Apocrypha, and volume 2 the Pseudepigrapha. This has been the standard scholarly edition of these books for many years, and it is still not superseded. It contains extensive introductions, critical and explanatory notes, and a detailed topical index.
(Comment from http://www.bible-researcher.com/versbib12.html)
Charles says, about Enoch: "The Sermon on the Mount reflects in several instances the spirit and even reproduces the very phrases of our text: many passages in the Gospels exhibit traces of the same, and St Paul seems to have used the book as a vade mecum."
 Signature Paul
Father Ignatius - 20 Nov 2007 21:15 GMT > It's true that Jesus is not depicted as killing anybody, > but > Christianity, not Judaism, has the idea of eternal > torment. mutter mutter Jewish Mothers mutter
Skitt - 20 Nov 2007 21:51 GMT
>> It's true that Jesus is not depicted as killing anybody, >> but Christianity, not Judaism, has the idea of eternal >> torment. > > mutter mutter Jewish Mothers mutter Naah, that's German.
 Signature Skitt
Peter Duncanson - 20 Nov 2007 21:52 GMT >> It's true that Jesus is not depicted as killing anybody, >> but >> Christianity, not Judaism, has the idea of eternal >> torment. > >mutter mutter Jewish Mothers mutter I hope that you are not suggesting that mumble mumble when Jesus of Nazareth mumble mumble accepted mumble mumble crucifixion mumble mumble He was relieved <stop mumbling> to be away from his Jewish Mother?
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Father Ignatius - 20 Nov 2007 21:58 GMT >>> It's true that Jesus is not depicted as killing anybody, >>> but [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > from > his Jewish Mother? Werl, swings and roundabouts, innit?
Anywaze, such a pathetically inadequate ploy was always doomed to fail: three days later, she was back.
Peter Moylan - 21 Nov 2007 09:23 GMT >> Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command >> that there be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > different entity. That is, did we change gods, or did God change, in > a sort of pre-modern example of Personal Growth? The accepted theory seems to be that the Jewish god is one-third of the Christian god. Yet another example of "our god is better than your god".
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Mike Lyle - 20 Nov 2007 19:58 GMT >> <...> >> Now that I think of it, the theology of the early Jews, as expounded [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > graciousness and at least have been civil to the other gods, sort of > like a wife toward her husband's ex-wives. I think he'd have been a bit more relaxed if they hadn't kept luring his subjects away with irresistibly lewd parties on hilltops. That kind of thing can play havoc with a deity's capacity for tolerance, you know.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Paul Wolff - 20 Nov 2007 20:49 GMT >The Grammer Genious wrote: >>> <...> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I think he'd have been a bit more relaxed if they hadn't kept luring his >subjects away with irresistibly lewd parties on hilltops. That was just an unfortunate misunderstanding of the phrase "Mount Moriah".
>That kind of >thing can play havoc with a deity's capacity for tolerance, you know. Havoc? Merry Hell, I think you'll find.
 Signature Paul
Peter Moylan - 21 Nov 2007 09:23 GMT > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and > at least have been civil to the other gods, sort of like a wife toward her > husband's ex-wives. There are wives who are civil towards their husband's ex-wives?
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Wood Avens - 21 Nov 2007 09:40 GMT >There are wives who are civil towards their husband's ex-wives? Oh, lots. Sometimes out of heartfelt sympathy.
 Signature Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Father Ignatius - 21 Nov 2007 09:50 GMT >>There are wives who are civil towards their husband's >>ex-wives? > > Oh, lots. Sometimes out of heartfelt sympathy. And there's orso the consideration of prezackly _how_ they go about being civil, some of which methods are downright scary.
Peter Moylan - 21 Nov 2007 11:32 GMT >> There are wives who are civil towards their husband's ex-wives? > > Oh, lots. Sometimes out of heartfelt sympathy. That makes sense. I can empathise with my ex's ex, even though I've never met him.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Father Ignatius - 21 Nov 2007 11:53 GMT >>> There are wives who are civil towards their husband's >>> ex-wives? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > though I've > never met him. This was arguably your first mistake.
Peter Moylan - 21 Nov 2007 13:11 GMT >>>> There are wives who are civil towards their husband's ex-wives? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This was arguably your first mistake. In future, I'll ask for references.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Robert Lieblich - 21 Nov 2007 23:30 GMT > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there > > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and > > at least have been civil to the other gods, sort of like a wife toward her > > husband's ex-wives. > > There are wives who are civil towards their husband's ex-wives? Mrs. Bob reports that it can be done. I've even seen some examples in my personal acquaintance. It's usually catalyzed by the need to share the care of dependent children.
Even so, I suspect The GG was being tongue in cheek just this once.
Some Buddy - 22 Nov 2007 18:25 GMT > > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there > > > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > my personal acquaintance. It's usually catalyzed by the need to share > the care of dependent children. According to a source I do not remember, Bill Lear the famous inventor and aviation pioneer once (maybe more than once) had guests at his home with a number of his ex-wives in the kitchen congenially working together to get dinner ready.
> Even so, I suspect The GG was being tongue in cheek just this once. If I knew what a GG was, maybe I'd find that interesting. "Great grandmother"? "Giggly girl"?
Skitt - 22 Nov 2007 18:35 GMT > Robert Lieblich said:
>>>> Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command >>>> that there be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > If I knew what a GG was, maybe I'd find that interesting. > "Great grandmother"? "Giggly girl"? It's not all that obscure -- look at the attributions at the top of this post.
 Signature Skitt Give a man a fish, and he will know where to come for fish. Teach a man to fish, and he will kill your market base.
Oleg Lego - 22 Nov 2007 22:13 GMT >> > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there >> > > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >If I knew what a GG was, maybe I'd find that interesting. >"Great grandmother"? "Giggly girl"? Perhaps you'd be happier reading alt.comments.obvious
Some Buddy - 22 Nov 2007 23:50 GMT > >> > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there > >> > > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >If I knew what a GG was, maybe I'd find that interesting. > >"Great grandmother"? "Giggly girl"? "Golden girl"?
> Perhaps you'd be happier reading alt.comments.obvious After Robert said "Mrs. Bob reports that it can be done" and followed with "Even so, I suspect the GG was being tongue in cheek just this once" it seemed obvious to me that the GG was meant to refer to Mrs. Bob. Why would I look further to define the puzzle?
Hatunen - 23 Nov 2007 02:44 GMT
>> >> Even so, I suspect The GG was being tongue in cheek just this once. >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >was meant to refer to Mrs. Bob. Why would I look further to >define the puzzle? Indeed. Why bother being right when you can be just as happy being wrong?
But to repeat:
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Some Buddy - 23 Nov 2007 08:26 GMT > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Indeed. Why bother being right when you can be just as happy > being wrong? That's flawed logic. How could I have been happy being wrong when I did not know I was wrong?
> But to repeat: After all the times that has been commented on in this thread it seems somewhat dimwitted of you to think it appropriate to repeat it.
Hatunen - 23 Nov 2007 18:29 GMT >> >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >That's flawed logic. How could I have been happy being >wrong when I did not know I was wrong? Quote: "Ignorance is bliss."
>> But to repeat: > >After all the times that has been commented on in this >thread it seems somewhat dimwitted of you to think it >appropriate to repeat it. Up to this point you seemed not to have seen it despite so many hints.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Father Ignatius - 23 Nov 2007 19:49 GMT > Quote: "Ignorance is bliss." I know! I know! Noël Coward, _Hay Fever_.
Hatunen - 23 Nov 2007 22:35 GMT >> Quote: "Ignorance is bliss." > >I know! I know! Noël Coward, _Hay Fever_. Thomas Gray: "Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise."
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Mike Lyle - 23 Nov 2007 22:53 GMT >>> Quote: "Ignorance is bliss." >> >> I know! I know! Noël Coward, _Hay Fever_. > > Thomas Gray: "Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise." "'Twere folly", no?
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Hatunen - 23 Nov 2007 23:11 GMT >>>> Quote: "Ignorance is bliss." >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >"'Twere folly", no? Now ya got me. I cut and pasted that from a web site.
I checked a few more sites and it seems to be "'Tis folly"
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Mike Lyle - 23 Nov 2007 23:17 GMT [...]
>>> Thomas Gray: "Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise." >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I checked a few more sites and it seems to be "'Tis folly" Yes, you're right: I'm sorry. I wonder how the "'twere" got as firmly fixed in my mind as it was.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Some Buddy - 23 Nov 2007 23:42 GMT <snip>
> >> But to repeat: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Up to this point you seemed not to have seen it despite so many > hints. I of course understood what was being hinted the first time it happened but as I've explained it was irrelevant because I did not care what GG meant. I only wanted to take a jab at the use of abbreviations. What GG meant was unimportant to that end.
It seems somewhat dimwitted of you not to understand that after I had so clearly and carefully explained it. You seem to be one of the fools who leap to the keyboard to respond based on a half-assed idea of what the poster is saying rather than trying to understand what he really is saying.
I generally speaking do not want to know what abbreviations stand for. Being curious about their meaning would be a step in the direction of honoring them.
Oleg Lego - 24 Nov 2007 07:14 GMT ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >based on a half-assed idea of what the poster is saying >rather than trying to understand what he really is saying. This is alt.usage .english, not alt.usage.vague.hints.and.telepathy
>I generally speaking do not want to know what abbreviations >stand for. Being curious about their meaning would be a >step in the direction of honoring them. Some Buddy - 24 Nov 2007 16:00 GMT > ><snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > This is alt.usage .english, not alt.usage.vague.hints.and.telepathy Then why did Hatunen assume that I wanted to know what GG stood for when I never even came close to asking a question? He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know. Can it be that he does not know that this is not alt.usage.vague.hints.and.telepathy?
I think I have heard that Englishmen do not understand irony. Maybe Hatunen is an Englishman. By the way are we still talking about the concept of God in Islam? How long will this 'thread' go on? Will it last as long as the 1314-post 'thread' that dealt with nothing but 'people' and 'persons'? (Note for irony-perception-deprived readers: Each of those questions is both rhetorical and ironic.)
> >I generally speaking do not want to know what abbreviations > >stand for. Being curious about their meaning would be a > >step in the direction of honoring them. Are we having fun yet?
tony cooper - 24 Nov 2007 16:13 GMT >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know. Don't concern yourself with this, Buddy, but for the others here: Is "jibe" acceptable for this meaning? I would use "gibe", but dictionary.com says "Also: jibe".
 Signature
Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Father Ignatius - 24 Nov 2007 16:23 GMT tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> het geskryf:
>> He could only have done so by taking my somewhat >> sarcastic jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know. > > Don't concern yourself with this, Buddy, but for the > others here: Is "jibe" acceptable for this meaning? I > would use "gibe", but dictionary.com says "Also: jibe". Yeah, it's fine. Left to myself, I would have written "jibe" and not thought about it, but I see Chambers, while accepting both, prefers "gibe". "Gybe" (alternatively "jibe") is different, of course.
 Signature Nat
-----
"...the masculine shall embrace the feminine and the feminine shall embrace the masculine..."
---The British Parliament's Interpretation Act
Bob Cunningham - 24 Nov 2007 18:58 GMT > >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic > >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know. > > Don't concern yourself with this, Buddy, but for the others here: Is > "jibe" acceptable for this meaning? I would use "gibe", but > dictionary.com says "Also: jibe". Do not concern yourself with this Mr. Cooper but for the others here the Collegiate dictionary gives 'jibe' as an alternative spelling for 'gibe':
| Main Entry: gibe | Variant:or jibe with the meaning:
| intransitive verb : to utter taunting sarcastic words : | express scorn : SNEER Mr. Cooper could have found an answer to his question by simply reading what it says in dictionaries. Is there not a newsgroup FAQ or something that advises posters to avoid asking questions that can be answered by a simple dictionary lookup?
tony cooper - 24 Nov 2007 20:31 GMT >> >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic >> >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >| Main Entry: gibe >| Variant:or jibe In tribute to JF: Golly!
>with the meaning: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >asking questions that can be answered by a simple dictionary >lookup? Perhaps your eyes are getting a bit rheumy and you missed reading that I acknowledged that dictionary.com says "Also: jibe".
My question, addressed to the readers of this group, had to do with preference rather than acceptability of a variant.
BTW, I was addressing the peoples in this group who view and understand what is written in this group. I was not referring to people who do basketwork or make vertical grooves on the edge of coins. I trust that I need not come up with a special spelling of the word to make this clear to you à la the Cunninghamfisted "reed/redd" proposed convention.
BTW II, why are you withholding commas? Are you anticipating a shortage in the future?
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Oleg Lego - 24 Nov 2007 21:05 GMT >> >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic >> >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >others here the Collegiate dictionary gives 'jibe' as an >alternative spelling for 'gibe': Geez, Bob, do you even read the posts you respond to? Have a look at what Tony wrote; you know, the part you included, just up there, where it says:
>> Don't concern yourself with this, Buddy, but for the others here: Is >> "jibe" acceptable for this meaning? I would use "gibe", but >> dictionary.com says "Also: jibe". Yeah, that's the one. See where he said 'I would use "gibe", but dictionary.com says "Also: jibe".'.
>| Main Entry: gibe >| Variant:or jibe [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >asking questions that can be answered by a simple dictionary >lookup? Bob Cunningham - 24 Nov 2007 21:25 GMT > >> >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic > >> >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >> "jibe" acceptable for this meaning? I would use "gibe", but > >> dictionary.com says "Also: jibe". Geez, Oleg, do you even read the posts you respond to? Have a look at what Tony wrote:
Is "jibe" acceptable for this meaning? I would use "gibe", but dictionary.com says "Also: jibe".
Yeah, that's the one. See where he asked the question and then let it stand even though the dictionary told him that 'gibe' and 'jibe' are equally acceptable.
> Yeah, that's the one. See where he said 'I would use "gibe", but > dictionary.com says "Also: jibe".'. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >asking questions that can be answered by a simple dictionary > >lookup? That is, he looked the matter up in the dictionary where he should have understood that the two are equally acceptable; then he posted for the specific purpose of asking the alt.usage.english readership if 'jibe' is 'acceptable for this meaning'. Maybe the FAQ doesn't say anything about people who do indeed consult the dictionary but can't understand what it says.
Oleg Lego - 24 Nov 2007 21:43 GMT >> >> >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic >> >> >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >then let it stand even though the dictionary told him that >'gibe' and 'jibe' are equally acceptable. Geez, Bob, can you not understand the difference between claiming that a word is unacceptable, and asking a group if it acceptable to them?
>> Yeah, that's the one. See where he said 'I would use "gibe", but >> dictionary.com says "Also: jibe".'. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >people who do indeed consult the dictionary but can't >understand what it says. Bob Cunningham - 25 Nov 2007 00:12 GMT > >> >> >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic > >> >> >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Geez, Bob, can you not understand the difference between claiming that > a word is unacceptable, and asking a group if it acceptable to them? You are so confused that I'm not sure where to start. But I guess we can start with "claiming that a word is unacceptable". How did that get into the discussion? Did somebody assert or even hint that someone had claimed that "jibe" was unacceptable? You seem to be implying that that's what has happened. It didn't happen while I was present.
As for "asking a group if it [is] acceptable to them", is the arrogance level so high in this group that standard dictionaries are not to be accepted unless the group first approves? Thanks anyway, but I will continue to accept the judgment of works like the _New Shorter Oxford_ for the British point of view and the _11th Collegiate_ for the American, in preference to what a bunch of strangers with unknown credentials may decide to tell me.
Anyway, Cooper didn't ask "is it acceptable to you people?" He just asked if it was acceptable. The way to answer that question is to look it up in a respected dictionary. I won't give much weight to what a member of the group thinks about it unless he or she backs it up with an authoritative source or maybe provides credentials to show that he or she is himorherself an authoritative source.
[...]
Anyway, this 'jibe'/'gibe' thing brings to mind an amusing error that used to creep into a report now and then at the place where I used to work. Like, 'the results of the two tests don't jive'. I could imagine someone's wanting those results to leap off the page and truck on down the avenue.
Oleg Lego - 25 Nov 2007 06:04 GMT >> >> >> >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic >> >> >> >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >that's what has happened. It didn't happen while I was >present. If one asks "Is "jibe" acceptable for this meaning?", one is also asking if it is unacceptable. Nicht whar?
>As for "asking a group if it [is] acceptable to them", is >the arrogance level so high in this group that standard [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >tests don't jive'. I could imagine someone's wanting those >results to leap off the page and truck on down the avenue. <yawn>
Bob Cunningham - 25 Nov 2007 10:30 GMT [...]
> >> Geez, Bob, can you not understand the difference between claiming that > >> a word is unacceptable, and asking a group if it acceptable to them? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If one asks "Is "jibe" acceptable for this meaning?", one is also > asking if it is unacceptable. Nicht whar? I asked readers to note how Oleg has deviously switched from his false implication that someone had *claimed* that a word was unacceptable to the red herring "asking if it is unacceptable".
I think Oleg is probably smart enough to know that there's a big difference between claiming that a word is unacceptable and asking if it's unacceptable. But he's apparently not smart enough to know that not many people will be fooled by his sneaky tactic.
Oleg Lego - 26 Nov 2007 06:17 GMT >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >was unacceptable to the red herring "asking if it is >unacceptable". You really are a piece of work, Bob. At no time did I imply that someone had claimed that the word was unacceptable. In fact, I asked you if you understood the difference between claiming that a word is unacceptable, and asking if it is acceptable.
>I think Oleg is probably smart enough to know that there's a >big difference between claiming that a word is unacceptable >and asking if it's unacceptable. But he's apparently not >smart enough to know that not many people will be fooled by >his sneaky tactic. Well, since you don't appear to understand the difference, it's easy to see how you might think I've been devious.
Bob Cunningham - 26 Nov 2007 17:11 GMT > >[...] > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > you if you understood the difference between claiming that a word is > unacceptable, and asking if it is acceptable. You really are a piece of work, Oleg. Cooper asked if the word was acceptable. I commented on that question. There was no doubt that he had asked it. I certainly gave no hint at any point that I thought anyone had claimed that the word was unacceptable. By asking "can you not understand the difference between claiming that a word is unacceptable, and asking a group if it acceptable to them?" you strongly implied that somehow the question of someone's claiming a word is unacceptable had arisen. Since I clearly assumed no such claim, and I wasn't aware that anyone else had, we were left with no choice but to conclude that you mistakenly assumed that someone else had.
Bottom line is that anyway you slice it the question "can you not understand the difference between claiming that a word is unacceptable, and asking a group if it acceptable to them?" had no basis for being asked, so it was a stupid, pointless question. Your question "If one asks 'Is "jibe" acceptable for this meaning?', one is also asking if it is unacceptable <incomprehensible jumble of letters omitted>?" deviously sidestepped your previous pointless question and replaced it with another, equally inappropriate and unrelated to previous remarks..
Do you ever read over what you've written to see if it makes sense before pushing the send button?
> >I think Oleg is probably smart enough to know that there's a > >big difference between claiming that a word is unacceptable [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, since you don't appear to understand the difference, it's easy > to see how you might think I've been devious. There you go again. You're saying that I don't appear to understand the difference while you have no earthly reason for assuming that I don't. You seem to be hallucinating.
tony cooper - 26 Nov 2007 17:51 GMT >You really are a piece of work, Oleg. Cooper asked if the >word was acceptable. No, what Cooper asked was " Is "jibe" acceptable for this meaning? I would use "gibe", but dictionary.com says "Also: jibe".
Surely, you can understand what "for this meaning" imparts to the question.
Your teacup runneth over.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Oleg Lego - 26 Nov 2007 18:25 GMT >> >[...] >> > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >understand the difference while you have no earthly reason >for assuming that I don't. You seem to be hallucinating. Of course you don't appear to understand the difference.
Please feel free to rant away. I won't be responding further.
Bob Cunningham - 26 Nov 2007 18:37 GMT [...]
> I won't be responding further. That's the best news I've had all day.
tony cooper - 24 Nov 2007 22:04 GMT >> >> >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic >> >> >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >then let it stand even though the dictionary told him that >'gibe' and 'jibe' are equally acceptable. Well, see, Bob, variants are not always equally acceptable. To me, "gibe" is used in context where a sarcastic poke in the eye is intended, and "jibe" is used in context where the meaning is about course or agreement.
Dictionaries offer "jibe" for "gibe" and "gibe" for "jibe", but the definitions are not the same. Not equal at all.
Fascinating things, words. "Jibe" is defined as "to shift from one side to another when running before the wind" and "to alter course". It's also defined as "to be in accord: agree". The definition of "gibe" offers no such meanings. Do we really reed them as the same?
What's with that? If your statement jibes with what I've read, is your statement on a different course than what I've redd or is it in agreement with what I've redd?
>> >Mr. Cooper could have found an answer to his question by >> >simply reading what it says in dictionaries. Is there not a >> >newsgroup FAQ or something that advises posters to avoid >> >asking questions that can be answered by a simple dictionary >> >lookup? See what happens when we do a simple dictionary lookup? The definitions don't jibe. Your gibe is undeserved.
I am, by the way, using simple dictionaries. I don't have access to the OED where the simple may be complexly extended.
I hope you set me straight here, Mr Cunningham. How acceptable are variant spellings when the definitions and usage varies?
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Bob Cunningham - 25 Nov 2007 01:09 GMT [...]
> >Yeah, that's the one. See where he asked the question and > >then let it stand even though the dictionary told him that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Dictionaries offer "jibe" for "gibe" and "gibe" for "jibe", but the > definitions are not the same. Not equal at all. That is very simply not true. Dictionaries say things like "gibe or jibe" and then give a set of definitions with no suggestion that any of the meanings pertain to one and not the other. Here for example is what the _11th Collegiate_ says:
Main Entry:gibe Variant: or jibe [...] Function:verb Inflected Form:gibed or jibed ; gib£ing or jib£ing Etymology:perhaps from Middle French giber to shake, handle roughly Date:1567
intransitive verb : to utter taunting words transitive verb : to deride or tease with taunting words synonyms see SCOFF gibe or jibe noun gib.er or jib.er noun
Clearly there's no suggestion there that the definitions don't apply to both spellings equally.
It's true that 'jibe' has homographs, but the question here is whether "jibe" is acceptable in the sense of "gibe". The homographs have nothing to do with the answer to that question, which is simply yes.
It's as if someone had asked "Is 'saw' acceptable as the past tense of 'see'? and someone had answered "Not necessarily, because 'saw' can also be a tool used to cut wood".
[...]
> What's with that? If your statement jibes with what I've read, is > your statement on a different course than what I've redd or is it in > agreement with what I've redd? I thought Tony Cooper was the only one who didn't understand the reason for the spelling "redd" and the places where it would be properly used. Now here you've misused it twice in the same sentence. That seems to rule out its being a typo, so there seem to be more than one of you after all.
> >> >Mr. Cooper could have found an answer to his question by > >> >simply reading what it says in dictionaries. Is there not a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > See what happens when we do a simple dictionary lookup? The > definitions don't jibe. Your gibe is undeserved. In the entries where the two spellings are given as simple alternatives, the definitions are the same for the two spellings. The definitions you want to bring in are in other entries for homographs of "jibe" where the two aren't given as alternative spellings. They are completely irrelevant to Cooper's question.
> I am, by the way, using simple dictionaries. I don't have access to > the OED where the simple may be complexly extended. Here's the heading for the relevant entry in the online _Oxford English Dictionary_:
gibe, jibe, n.1
and the single definition, which applies equally to the two, is
A scoffing or sneering speech; a taunt, flout, or jeer.
The examples range from 1573 to 1885, with the oldest having the spelling "iybes"; the latest, "jibes"; and a mixture running predominantly to "gibe" in between; a notable exception being from Hamlet, 1602,
Alas poore Yorick..Where be your Jibes now?
I won't bother to look at homographs of "jibe" in the _OED_, because there's no point in doing so.
> I hope you set me straight here, Mr Cunningham. How acceptable are > variant spellings when the definitions and usage varies? I'll wait to comment on that until someone shows me a dictionary entry with the alternative spellings "jibe" and "gibe" whose meanings don't coincide. All you've brought up is that the "jibe" that's an alternative spelling of "gibe" has homographs with quite different meanings.
Cooper didn't ask about those homographs. He just asked if "jibe" is acceptable with the same meaning as "gibe". A good dictionary would have given him the simple answer yes. There was no need to clutter up Usenet with a question about it.
Bob Cunningham - 25 Nov 2007 01:43 GMT I really screwed up.
I somehow lost track of whose posting I was replying to below. I thought for some strange reason it was someone other than Tony Cooper. That explains paragraphs where I'm using both "you" and "Cooper". I thought the "you" was the someone.
If I had realized it was Cooper's posting, I wouldn't have responded at all. I normally don't pay much attention to anything he posts.
> [...] > [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > There was no need to clutter up Usenet with a question about > it. tony cooper - 25 Nov 2007 06:47 GMT >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >the other. Here for example is what the _11th Collegiate_ >says: I am, of course, deeply honored that you should reply to me and not to someone else with allusions to "Cooper" as is your usual style. However, I have read ahead in the thread and see that your reply was in error and the honor was fleeting.
What you are saying is that the presence of a variant *spelling* means that the word has the same definition in both cases. Yet, the dictionary does not bear this out. For example, the word "fulfill" is listed with a set of definitions and then shows "Also: fulfil". Skipping to "fulfil", the same definitions are offered as are offered with "fulfill".
Try "flier" and "flyer" or "veranda" and "verandah" or "adviser" and "advisor". Each lists the same definitions for each spelling. "Artifact" and "artefact" have the same definitions, but "artefact" is a variant of "artifact".
Progressing, then, when we *don't* see the same definition in the listing of two variants could we assume that while we'll accept one variant for the other as a spelling, we don't necessarily accept both variants to have the same definition? As is the case with "gibe" and "jibe"?
>Clearly there's no suggestion there that the definitions >don't apply to both spellings equally. Oh, but there is. The omission of the same definitions is much more than a mere suggestion.
>It's true that 'jibe' has homographs, but the question here >is whether "jibe" is acceptable in the sense of "gibe". The >homographs have nothing to do with the answer to that >question, which is simply yes. I sense that smoke is billowing up from somewhere around my hip pockets. Homographs are an entirely different thing. You've veered off-course to bring them into this.
>> What's with that? If your statement jibes with what I've read, is >> your statement on a different course than what I've redd or is it in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the reason for the spelling "redd" and the places where it >would be properly used. Name one.
>> See what happens when we do a simple dictionary lookup? The >> definitions don't jibe. Your gibe is undeserved. > >In the entries where the two spellings are given as simple >alternatives, the definitions are the same for the two >spellings.
>> I hope you set me straight here, Mr Cunningham. How acceptable are >> variant spellings when the definitions and usage varies? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >is that the "jibe" that's an alternative spelling of "gibe" >has homographs with quite different meanings. American Heritage:
gibe also jibe (ji-b) Pronunciation Key v. gibed also jibed, gib·ing also jib·ing, gibes also jibes
v. intr. To make taunting, heckling, or jeering remarks.
v. tr. To deride with taunting remarks.
n. A derisive remark.
[Possibly from obsolete French giber, to handle roughly, play, from Old French.]
gib'er n., gib'ing·ly adv. (Download Now or Buy the Book)
and:
jibe 1 also gybe (ji-b) Pronunciation Key v. jibed also gybed, jib·ing also gyb·ing, jibes also gybes
v. intr. To shift a fore-and-aft sail from one side of a vessel to the other while sailing before the wind so as to sail on the opposite tack.
v. tr. To cause (a sail) to jibe.
n. The act of jibing.
>Cooper didn't ask There we go. Back to normal.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Bob Cunningham - 25 Nov 2007 12:32 GMT [...]
> > Clearly there's no suggestion [in the entry for 'gibe, also jibe' > > there that the definitions don't apply to both spellings equally. > > Oh, but there is. The omission of the same definitions is much more > than a mere suggestion.
> >It's true that 'jibe' has homographs, but the question here > >is whether "jibe" is acceptable in the sense of "gibe". The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > [...] Homographs are an entirely different thing. You've veered > off-course to bring them into this. Nonsense. Homographs have everything to do with it. "Gibe" with its alternative spelling "jibe" has only one set of meanings that aren't differentiated between the two spellings. There are other words spelled "jibe", but they're merely homographs of the one that's alternative to "gibe". They have completely different meanings and different etymologies. They're true homographs.
This thread started with a question by Cooper about "jibe" as shown by dictionaries to be an alternative spelling of "gibe". Cooper has attempted to veer off-course by bringing up homographs of that "jibe".
Knowing Cooper, I know that he'll try to find some verbose way to weasel out of the truth he's confronted with. I also know that, as ever, I don't want to waste any more time communicating with him.
Have fun, Cooper, weasel away. The floor is yours alone from now on. Your weaseling will not be responded to from this corner.
tony cooper - 25 Nov 2007 13:25 GMT >Knowing Cooper, I know that he'll try to find some verbose >way to weasel out of the truth he's confronted with. I also [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >from now on. Your weaseling will not be responded to from >this corner. Good choice. A trick you've borrowed from defense lawyers. Never put your client on the stand when their testimony can only hurt the case.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Robert Lieblich - 25 Nov 2007 15:00 GMT [ ... ]
> > [...] Homographs are an entirely different thing. You've veered > > off-course to bring them into this. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "gibe". They have completely different meanings and > different etymologies. They're true homographs. Um, Tony, on the narrow point of homographs: Bob C. has you there. There's more than one word spelled "jibe," as there is more word spelled "ounce" and more than one word spelled "stern." (There are hundreds if not thousands of such situations in English). We have a tendency to refer to a given spelling as a given "word", as if one-sixteenth of a pound and a snow leopard (or the adjective pertaining to discipline and the noun designating the backside of a ship) are the same "word." But in fact they are different words, with different etymologies and different meanings, that happen to have the same spelling. Such words are called "homographs."
So, okay, "j-i-b-e" is the spelling of three different words. It's possible that some dictionaries lump them all under their shared spelling as if they're all the same word, but this is sloppy practice, and good dictionaries are careful to give each word a separate listing. Check the likes of M-W, AHD, and Oxford.
I'm not all that clear on what exactly is in dispute between you and Bob C., but let's at least get our terminology straight. On the issue of how many words are spelled "jibe," he's right. And when Bob C. is right, he's right.
tony cooper - 25 Nov 2007 17:08 GMT >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >of how many words are spelled "jibe," he's right. And when Bob C. is >right, he's right. But Mr Cunningham has labeled me as a slippery weasel, and - as such - I am entitled to exercise the prerogative of saying that this is not about homographs. It is about choosing the right variant spelling to convey the meaning intended. IMO, "jibe" does not convey the same meaning as "gibe". Mr Cunningham's jibe to homographs is not what this is about.
Lost in this shuffle is that my original question had to do with questioning the preferences of the assembled-on-screen body here. My preference is to use "gibe" for the sarcastic poke, and I'm curious if this preference is shared by others.
It seems not right to me to use "jibe" for this meaning. I'm avoiding "wrong" because "wrong" would be wrong. Allowable is not wrong, but it's not entirely right, either. If you get my drift.
Speaking of drift, as often the case with Mr Cunningham's spit bubbles when I'm involved, one of his criticisms of my post was that I needlessly cluttered up usenet with my question. He also suggested that I would offer a verbose rebuttal.
He then proceeded to clutter up usenet with a series of verbose rantings.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Mike Lyle - 25 Nov 2007 22:29 GMT [...]
> Lost in this shuffle is that my original question had to do with > questioning the preferences of the assembled-on-screen body here. My [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "wrong" because "wrong" would be wrong. Allowable is not wrong, but > it's not entirely right, either. If you get my drift. [...]
Eh? What? Is there something going on? ... Yes, on the whole I agree with Tony on this, as do Collins and OED. "Gibe" is given first for "jeer" etc, while "jibe" is the only one for the "correspond" sense (which I never use anyhow). There doesn't seem to be any particularly good /reason/, though, unless one takes the "jeer" one as a derivative of Old French /giber/, which is offered merely as a "perhaps".
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Pat Durkin - 25 Nov 2007 15:55 GMT > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > from now on. Your weaseling will not be responded to from > this corner. Say, in your researches, did youse find the "jive" spelling? I hear the non-nautical word pronounced that way quite a bit. (If it doesn't fit you must not jive it.)
Robert Lieblich - 25 Nov 2007 16:16 GMT [ ... ]
> Say, in your researches, did youse find the "jive" spelling? I hear the > non-nautical word pronounced that way quite a bit. (If it doesn't fit > you must not jive it.) The use of "jive" in place of "jibe" in the meaning "correspond" or "agree" is common in my experience but hasn't yet found its way into M-W or AHD online. It's in the Eggcorn Database: <http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/420/jive/>.
Oleg Lego - 26 Nov 2007 06:17 GMT >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >from now on. Your weaseling will not be responded to from >this corner. Include me in that too, please. There's a good lad.
Bob Cunningham - 26 Nov 2007 16:45 GMT [...]
> >Have fun, Cooper, weasel away. The floor is yours alone > >from now on. Your weaseling will not be responded to from > >this corner.
> Include me in that too, please. There's a good lad. English usage dilettantes may find it intriguing to try to fathom what antecedent Oleg intends for his "that".
Does he want to be included in those who are advised to weasel away?
Does he want to be included in those who will not respond to Cooper's weaseling?
It can't be that he wants to be included in a group having the floor alone, because "alone" requires that only one weaseler have the floor.
I doubt that he means he wants to be included in those whose weaseling I won't respond to, because that would be tantamount to recognizing that he, too, is a weaseler.
Are there other possibilities?
Mike Lyle - 26 Nov 2007 18:36 GMT > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Are there other possibilities? I'm distressed to note that nobody has yet spoken up for the humble weasel. If you've ever watched one wiggling through a hedgerow doing its mustelid stuff, or dashing in its undulating, almost fluid, way across the road in front of your car, you'll know what delightful little creatures they are.
They're clean, excellent parents, and have never to my knowledge displayed the slightest tendency to duplicity. Why, they don't even change colour in the winter to disguise themselves amid the frost and snow --that's a stoatally different animal.
So let's have a bit less of this speciesist libel, you blokes.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Father Ignatius - 26 Nov 2007 21:54 GMT Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> het geskryf:
> I'm distressed to note that nobody has yet spoken up for > the humble weasel. If you've ever watched one wiggling [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > disguise themselves amid the frost and snow --that's a > stoatally different animal. And, I yam charmed to learn, they are one of only two species that fuffs to warn of their intention to attack.
 Signature Nat
-----
"We know that more than 70 to 80% of women masturbate, and 90% of men masturbate, and the rest lie."
---Joycelyn Elders
Oleg Lego - 27 Nov 2007 04:08 GMT >Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> het geskryf: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >And, I yam charmed to learn, they are one of only two >species that fuffs to warn of their intention to attack. Interesting word, and a new one to me. What other species does this?
Father Ignatius - 27 Nov 2007 05:35 GMT Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat.com> het geskryf:
>> Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> het >> geskryf: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Interesting word, and a new one to me. What other species > does this? The tiger.
 Signature Nat
-----
"She had a Mount Rushmore T-shirt on, and those guys never looked so good. Especially Jefferson and Lincoln. Kind of bloated, but happy."
---/A Prairie Home Companion/
Oleg Lego - 27 Nov 2007 17:18 GMT >Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat.com> het geskryf: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >The tiger. Thanks, padre. I had no idea any animal did that.
Robin Bignall - 27 Nov 2007 22:11 GMT >>Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat.com> het geskryf: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Thanks, padre. I had no idea any animal did that. What the fuff is a fuff?
 Signature Robin Herts, England
Mike Lyle - 27 Nov 2007 23:30 GMT >>> Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat.com> het geskryf: >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > What the fuff is a fuff? You've heard of "Tyger, tyger, burning bright"? Well, reflect on what inflammable the animal might produce. How they ignite it is a mystery to me ...
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Father Ignatius - 28 Nov 2007 05:37 GMT Robin Bignall <docrobin@ntlworld.com> het geskryf:
>>> Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat.com> het geskryf: >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > What the fuff is a fuff? An onomatopoeic name for a noise warning of impending attack.
<Insert witty remark about fuffers in the porn industry.>
Father Ignatius - 28 Nov 2007 04:53 GMT Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat.com> het geskryf:
>> Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat.com> het geskryf:
>>>> And, I yam charmed to learn, they are one of only two >>>> species that fuffs to warn of their intention to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thanks, padre. I had no idea any animal did that. I also learn that "fuffing" is a name given to the photographic technique of bounce-flashing (flash-bouncing?) but I dunno how general this is.
Skitt - 28 Nov 2007 17:24 GMT > Oleg Lego het geskryf: >> Father Ignatius posted: >>> Oleg Lego het geskryf: >>>> Father Ignatius posted:
>>>>> And, I yam charmed to learn, they are one of only two >>>>> species that fuffs to warn of their intention to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > photographic technique of bounce-flashing (flash-bouncing?) > but I dunno how general this is. Fuff v. t. & i. [Of imitative origin. Cf. Puff.] To puff. [Prov. Eng. A Local, U. S.] Halliwel.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
 Signature Skitt
Mark Brader - 25 Nov 2007 00:31 GMT Tony Cooper:
> Don't concern yourself with this, Buddy, but for the others here: Is > "jibe" acceptable for this meaning? I would use "gibe", but > dictionary.com says "Also: jibe". I'm surprised. "Jibe" is the only spelling I knew for it until now.
 Signature Mark Brader, Toronto "Where do you want Microsoft to go today?" msb@vex.net -- Rick Ross
Mike Lyle - 24 Nov 2007 17:42 GMT [...]
> Are we having fun yet? Well, /something's/ keeping you going. I assume it isn't displeasure.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Some Buddy - 24 Nov 2007 19:04 GMT > [...] > > > > Are we having fun yet? > > Well, /something's/ keeping you going. I assume it isn't displeasure. Try cantankerousness or meanness. It is fun to be ornery sometimes.
Mike Lyle - 24 Nov 2007 22:13 GMT >> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Try cantankerousness or meanness. It is fun to be ornery > sometimes. Even better if you can spice it with a bit of wit. Or even a point. I confess I'm not holding my breath.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Hatunen - 24 Nov 2007 22:30 GMT >Then why did Hatunen assume that I wanted to know what GG >stood for when I never even came close to asking a question? Of course you asked a question, to wit:
- If I knew what a GG was, maybe I'd find that interesting. "Great grandmother"? "Giggly girl"? -
[...]
>Are we having fun yet? I suspect some of us are.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Some Buddy - 25 Nov 2007 01:17 GMT > >Then why did Hatunen assume that I wanted to know what GG > >stood for when I never even came close to asking a question? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > - If I knew what a GG was, maybe I'd find that interesting. > "Great grandmother"? "Giggly girl"? - Those aren't questions. They're intentionally silly suggestions to mock the use of abbreviations. Someone with a sense of humor might find them amusing.
Hatunen - 25 Nov 2007 02:43 GMT >> >Then why did Hatunen assume that I wanted to know what GG >> >stood for when I never even came close to asking a question? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >suggestions to mock the use of abbreviations. Someone with >a sense of humor might find them amusing. I have no idea why you would want to mock thm.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Robert Lieblich - 25 Nov 2007 04:04 GMT > >> >Then why did Hatunen assume that I wanted to know what GG > >> >stood for when I never even came close to asking a question? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I have no idea why you would want to mock thm. Persons. Persons. I can't leave youse guys alone for even a couple of days, even for a turkey-free Thanksgiving (long story that only the likes of the late Graeme Thomas could make amusing). We need Garry Vass to return and deliver his "Welcome to AUE" Speec^H^H^H^H^HPost to all the newbies, so they will know that the natives are friendly. We are, aren't we?
In retrospect, I'm sorry I said anything at all about "people." Henceforth I shall eschew the word, limiting myself exclusively to "persons," at least until I forget that I made that promise. Here, for starters, is the sentence that triggered so much of what has been going on in my absence, duly amended (footnote omitted):
"In general, the Hebrew God seems to mature as his persons matures."
I'd like to add that some of you seem not to have understood precisely what I intended by the original sentence cum footnote. Let's get cracking on those reading skills, gang.
And now, as Rodney King so eloquently put it, "Can't we all get along?"
[PS for Some Buddy only: there is some sarcasm, or perhaps it's irony, in what I posted. This is not uncommon in postings to AUE. I see that you yourself have attempted some of the same. Good for you. And shame on all you non-Buddys who read this anyway.]
tony cooper - 23 Nov 2007 03:58 GMT >> >> > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there >> >> > > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >was meant to refer to Mrs. Bob. Why would I look further to >define the puzzle? SB is no genious.
 Signature
Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Skitt - 23 Nov 2007 05:15 GMT > Some Buddy wrote: >> Oleg Lego said: >>> Some Buddy posted: >>>> Robert Lieblich said: >>>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>>> Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to >>>>>>> command that there be no other gods before Him. He might have [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > SB is no genious. Yeah, and there are some pretty sharp knives in this drawer.
 Signature Skitt Ouch!
Father Ignatius - 23 Nov 2007 04:17 GMT > After Robert said "Mrs. Bob reports that it can be done" > and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to > define the puzzle? YAPGAICMFP
CDB - 23 Nov 2007 15:24 GMT [buddying up]
> YAPGAICMFP Oh, please. Hers was a kind of performance art. Illustrated. Sometimes I even miss her (not that I'm not grateful to Vinnie: somebody had to do it, and the cut was quick).
Maria - 24 Nov 2007 05:15 GMT > [buddying up] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Vinnie: > somebody had to do it, and the cut was quick). You mean Vinnie was responsible? I missed that. (Thank you very much, V.)
And to the good Fr.: I was trying to come up with a clever, Fontana-like initialism, but yours is perfect... well, as close to perfect as anything really is.
Having left perfection behind somewhere, Maria
Vinny Burgoo - 27 Nov 2007 21:47 GMT In alt.usage.english, Maria wrote:
>> Oh, please. Hers was a kind of performance art. Illustrated. >> Sometimes I even miss her (not that I'm not grateful to Vinnie: >> somebody had to do it, and the cut was quick). > >You mean Vinnie was responsible? I missed that. (Thank you very much, >V.) My pleasure. (I was?)
 Signature V
CDB - 28 Nov 2007 00:50 GMT > In alt.usage.english, Maria wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > My pleasure. (I was?) I have preserved a copy against future need (from July 13; she disappeared suddenly, soon after):
"In alt.usage.english, Purl Gurl wrote:
[some crap or other]
Say, Kira!
You still here?
Did you ever get around to answering this question?
do you consider the taking of indian land as well as stories, by non indians, to be cultural misappropriation?
<http://board.e-chahta.com/ikonboard.cgi?act=Print;f=1;t=546>
-- Vinny Burgoyne"
Vinny Burgoo - 30 Nov 2007 17:05 GMT In alt.usage.english, CDB wrote:
>> My pleasure. (I was?) > >I have preserved a copy against future need (from July 13; she >disappeared suddenly, soon after): [snip Chatha chat]
I'm sure she was around for a while after that. (Where "that" = "weird stalking unkindness".)
 Signature V
CDB - 30 Nov 2007 19:04 GMT > In alt.usage.english, CDB wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'm sure she was around for a while after that. (Where "that" = > "weird stalking unkindness".) Hard now for me to remember the timeline. All I remember is what I thought at the time: that I had seen few or no new posts of hers after reading the discussion at that URL. The contrast between the manners of those undoubted Chathas (to perpetuate an assumed deliberate munge) and those of Her Holbaness was pretty striking.
"Unkindness" could only be justified by assuming that she was sincerely deluded. Maybe; I could never be sure*, so I tried as much as possible to encourage the posts I liked (and there were some) while ignoring the disagreeable ones, or commenting on them only as much as necessary to protect the unprotected -- similar techniques have always worked a treat on my dogs. I'm sure she's happily visiting her extraversions on somebody, somewhere; I suspect she'll be back eventually, I hope in a persona somewhat closer to her real self.
*Though I seem to recall noticing a post or two of hers that was written in impeccable academic prose.
Vinny Burgoo - 30 Nov 2007 20:01 GMT In alt.usage.english, CDB wrote:
>> [snip Chatha chat] >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >reading the discussion at that URL. The contrast between the manners >of those undoubted Chathas (to perpetuate an assumed deliberate munge) No, 'twas an innocent error.
>and those of Her Holbaness was pretty striking. Indeedy doody.
>"Unkindness" could only be justified by assuming that she was >sincerely deluded. Well, she's certainly damaged. Whole people don't behave like that.
>Maybe; I could never be sure*, so I tried as much as possible to >encourage the posts I liked (and there were some) while ignoring the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >somebody, somewhere; I suspect she'll be back eventually, I hope in a >persona somewhat closer to her real self. That'd be nice.
>*Though I seem to recall noticing a post or two of hers that was >written in impeccable academic prose.
 Signature V
Oleg Lego - 23 Nov 2007 04:25 GMT >> >> > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there >> >> > > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >was meant to refer to Mrs. Bob. Why would I look further to >define the puzzle? No idea. Your motives are your own. However, he was answering posts from various people, including several layers of quoting, so perhaps you might look back through the quotes to see if anyone forms a probable candidate matching "being tongue in cheek" and "The GG".
Some Buddy - 23 Nov 2007 08:48 GMT > >> >> > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there > >> >> > > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > you might look back through the quotes to see if anyone forms a > probable candidate matching "being tongue in cheek" and "The GG". Thank you. That is a reasonable suggestion that is refreshing to see amidst all the foolishness that has been posted in responses to my remarks. However my motivation was not to understand what GG stood for but to signal an objection to the use of abbreviations.
Please look again at the exchange in question and consider it from the standpoint that I did not really care what GG stood for but I did want to register contempt for the use of the abbreviation. Here is the exchange again for convenient reference:
> >> >> Even so, I suspect The GG was being tongue in cheek just this once. > >> > > >> >If I knew what a GG was, maybe I'd find that interesting. > >> >"Great grandmother"? "Giggly girl"? Contempt registered. When properly interpreted, no reason to think that I cared what GG stood for.
tony cooper - 23 Nov 2007 13:32 GMT >Thank you. That is a reasonable suggestion that is >refreshing to see amidst all the foolishness that has been >posted in responses to my remarks. However my motivation >was not to understand what GG stood for but to signal an >objection to the use of abbreviations. Your objection is noted. Of equal importance to this group, I do not like anchovies.
 Signature Tony Cooper Orlando, FL
Leslie Danks - 23 Nov 2007 13:32 GMT >>Thank you. That is a reasonable suggestion that is >>refreshing to see amidst all the foolishness that has been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Your objection is noted. Of equal importance to this group, I do not > like anchovies. AOL
 Signature Les
mUs1Ka - 23 Nov 2007 15:11 GMT >>>Thank you. That is a reasonable suggestion that is >>>refreshing to see amidst all the foolishness that has been [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > AOL Anchovies over-looked?
 Signature Ray UK
I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you? http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
Some Buddy - 23 Nov 2007 15:51 GMT [...]
> > AOL
> Anchovies over-looked? Any old lurker.
Oleg Lego - 23 Nov 2007 19:58 GMT >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Any old lurker. AOL = "Me too". I leave the reason as an exercise for the student.
Peter Moylan - 23 Nov 2007 16:45 GMT >> Your objection is noted. Of equal importance to this group, I do >> not like anchovies. > > AOL Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never quite understood how they came to be classified as a food.
Related comment: at Subway, which sells surprisingly good sandwiches [1] for a junk food shop, a great many customers have memorised the phrase "everything except the jalapeños".
[1] Except that their "six inchers" are only four inches long. One of these days I'm going to march in there with my ancient pre-metric ruler. They're taking advantage of the fact that most people have never learnt how long an inch is.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Father Ignatius - 23 Nov 2007 17:04 GMT > Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never > quite > understood how they came to be classified as a food. Yes, in a specifically defined way. I picked up a tip a while back that adding a chopped anchovy fillet to "almost anything" (yeah, well... It didn't do much for the broccoli ice-cream, I can tell you) gives it a [desirable] certain something.
Examples of dishes where this is true include meaningful lasagnes al forno and spaghettis bolognaise (not that school-lunch stuff, but the Real Thing) when one prepares a boat-load the day before and leaves it overnight in the fridge to gain flavour. Also slow-cooked lamb-shanks.
Peter Moylan - 23 Nov 2007 18:10 GMT >> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never quite >> understood how they came to be classified as a food. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it overnight in the fridge to gain flavour. Also slow-cooked > lamb-shanks. OK, I'll take the risk and throw some anchovies into my next sauce bolognaise. One never knows. I do agree with your implied comment that a bolognaise sauce shouldn't be consumed on the same day that it was cooked. Except, perhaps, in the case where the cooking time exceeded four hours.
I haven't had a bolognaise sauce since I vowed to give up carbohydrates. I'd welcome any suggestions as to what else it could be poured over. A Kaiser salad might just qualify, but I'm not totally sure.
Lamb shanks bring back memories of the Sunday night meals of my childhood, where the evening soup was made from the leftovers of the midday roast. I'm not sure how to replicate that experience. A roast joint is a rarity when one is cooking for a single person.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Father Ignatius - 23 Nov 2007 19:43 GMT >> Yes, in a specifically defined way. I picked up a tip a >> while back >> that adding a chopped anchovy fillet to "almost anything" >> (yeah, ^
> OK, I'll take the risk and throw some anchovies into my > next sauce Not some. One fillet - chopped fine enough so it completely disappear into the main body of the dish - is an elegant sufficiency, I believe. If your guests say, "Hmmmm, anchovy", as opposed to non-specific gushing, you've overdone it.
> bolognaise. One never knows. I do agree with your implied > comment that a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > time exceeded > four hours. Perhaps. But, even then, next day is better. [Thinks: "Gotta have _some_ principles."]
> I haven't had a bolognaise sauce since I vowed to give up > carbohydrates. [curious^Winquisitive] Um... Why?
And good luck with that one: bolognaise sauce was put on earth to be poured over carbohydrate.
> I'd welcome any suggestions as to what else it could be > poured over. A > Kaiser salad might just qualify, but I'm not totally sure. [After googling] Lettuce, chicken, croutons and parmesan cheese? Chicken?
> Lamb shanks bring back memories of the Sunday night meals > of my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > experience. A roast > joint is a rarity when one is cooking for a single person. There are ways around this. Lamb shanks would be one of them, and eisbeins another. Cook 'em all together; freeze, thaw and reheat them individually;[1] and add the left-over bones privatim et seriatim to a stash in the freezer until you have a full set[2]. Proceed with the soup.
Or you could roast a chicken, or get one from the deli, and have one hot chicken meal followed on successive days by cold chicken meals, followed by chicken soup. If you want to make a proper pea soup (and who doesn't?), you can get a nice bone by living on, for example, cold gammon for breakfast for two weeks (there are worse fates).
Another approach is to buy bones from the supermarket. Folk will tell you "No-one makes their own stock any more" but don't you believe 'em. A gently bubbling stock-pot is a trific thing to have in the background.
[1] Is that an Oxford semi-colon?
[2] Kinda like that old bachelor's trick of storing the washing-up in the freezer.
Peter Moylan - 24 Nov 2007 00:27 GMT >> I haven't had a bolognaise sauce since I vowed to give up >> carbohydrates. > > [curious^Winquisitive] Um... Why? Just recently I spent a couple of weeks at my father's home. I slept in my stepmother's room. Dad never goes in there, so it's been left unchanged since she died. In particular, it's full of mirrors.
That meant that each time I undressed I got a view of myself in profile. That was enough to make me decide "I don't want to look like that". A side view of yourself can be shocking if you're not used to seeing it.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Father Ignatius - 24 Nov 2007 05:45 GMT >>> I haven't had a bolognaise sauce since I vowed to give >>> up carbohydrates. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > not used to > seeing it. Ah. But that doesn't point the finger at carbohydrates so much as fats, I would say.
I infer that you may be of a nappropriate wintage to be 'fluenced by the now-deprecated "Drinking Man's Diet", which works on limiting carbohydrates. It's not the spaghetti in spaghetti bolognaise that your waistline needs to worry about so much, alas, as the cheese (and how fatty the beef mince was).
Oleg Lego - 24 Nov 2007 07:09 GMT >>>> I haven't had a bolognaise sauce since I vowed to give >>>> up carbohydrates. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Ah. But that doesn't point the finger at carbohydrates so >much as fats, I would say. Most people eat a truly prodigious amount of carbs, compared to the amount of fat consumed. While it's true that fats have a higher caloric content, carbs tend to be eaten in larger amounts.
I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes exactly 3 months ago. Since then, I have cut down considerably on the total amount of food I eat, and in doing so, I have drastically cut starchy foods (pasta, potatoes, corn, rice), and grains. If anything, I have increased fats and protein, and one of the effects of those is to satisfy the appetite.
Since Aug 24, I have gone from 237 lb. to 207 lb.
>I infer that you may be of a nappropriate wintage to be >'fluenced by the now-deprecated "Drinking Man's Diet", which >works on limiting carbohydrates. It's not the spaghetti in >spaghetti bolognaise that your waistline needs to worry >about so much, alas, as the cheese (and how fatty the beef >mince was). Maria - 24 Nov 2007 07:21 GMT Oleg Lego wrote, in part:
> I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes exactly 3 months ago. Welcome to the club.
....Since then,
> I have cut down considerably on the total amount of food > I eat, and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Since Aug 24, I have gone from 237 lb. to 207 lb. You are doing well, I'd say. Good on'ya.
 Signature Maria
Pat Durkin - 24 Nov 2007 18:17 GMT > Oleg Lego wrote, in part: >> >> I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes exactly 3 months ago. > > Welcome to the club. Ditto.
(on the diabetes support groups they say "...to the club nobody wants to belong to."
Oleg Lego - 24 Nov 2007 21:08 GMT >Oleg Lego wrote, in part: >> >> I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes exactly 3 months ago. > >Welcome to the club. Reluctant participant though I may be, thanks, I think.
> ....Since then, >> I have cut down considerably on the total amount of food [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >You are doing well, I'd say. Good on'ya. Thanks. My first A1C was 8.1%, the next test is on Nov 30. Got me fingers crossed.
Robert Lieblich - 25 Nov 2007 04:21 GMT > >Oleg Lego wrote, in part: > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Thanks. My first A1C was 8.1%, the next test is on Nov 30. Got me > fingers crossed. I wonder if this is a candidate for Post Whose Content is Farthest From Subject Line.
Oleg Lego - 25 Nov 2007 06:04 GMT >> >Oleg Lego wrote, in part: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >I wonder if this is a candidate for Post Whose Content is Farthest >From Subject Line. Possible. Is there a prize?
Peter Moylan - 24 Nov 2007 10:11 GMT >>>> I haven't had a bolognaise sauce since I vowed to give up >>>> carbohydrates. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the now-deprecated "Drinking Man's Diet", which works on limiting > carbohydrates. Controversial, yes. Disputed, yes. But not deprecated by everyone, because the jury is still out. For the moment, my GP is very much in favour of the Atkins diet. I'm not following that in its pure form, because I find it difficult to be that fanatical, but I'm trying to limit total food intake, and especially those foods such as potatoes that my experience shows are very quickly metabolised into lard. (And even more so for alcohol, despite the contrary opinions that abound. Whenever I lapse and have a few drinks I start swelling up again.) I'm eating small amounts of bread because I need the roughage. For the same reason I also eat small amounts of brown rice (but not white rice, which doesn't have much taste anyway.) In summary, I'm not following anyone's pet theory; I'm simply being careful about those foods that in *my* experience cause me trouble.
> It's not the spaghetti in spaghetti bolognaise that your waistline > needs to worry about so much, alas, as the cheese (and how fatty the > beef mince was). I'm eating very little cheese these days - it's mainly when needed to subdue chocolate cravings - and I never took up the habit of putting cheese on spaghetti. As for fatty beef: the butchers and supermarkets are really pushing so-called "heart-safe" lean meat these days, to the point where it would be hard to buy fatty meat if you wanted to. My knowledge of American meat must be well out of date by now, but back when I lived in the USA the meat was all very fatty, much of it was noticeably marbled, and to my Australian-trained palate it always tasted a bit greasy. No doubt a difference in national tastes led to a difference in the ways of feeding and raising meat animals. By now, I presume, the practice of overfeeding animals has been moderated by the recognition of an obesity crisis among the diners, but I strongly suspect that much Australian meat would still be judged as "not fatty enough" in the US market.
In brief, there never was a lot of fat in my diet. The things I need to watch are the sugars and related items, which get metabolised into fat once they go down the hatch. We need some carbohydrates, of course, but the quantity needs to governed by the amount we're going to burn by exercise.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Father Ignatius - 24 Nov 2007 15:20 GMT Peter Moylan <peter@DIESPAMMERSDIEpmoylan.org> het geskryf:
> I'm trying to limit > total food intake, and especially those foods such as > potatoes that my experience shows are very quickly > metabolised into lard. (And even more so for alcohol, > despite the contrary opinions that abound. Whenever I > lapse and have a few drinks I start swelling up again.) Hmmmm. I Simply Do Not Wish To Hear This. Yes, I can see, in my mine sigh, sausage and bacon fat and chocolate and butter - even bread - being turned into blubber. I see no such vision in a healthful glass of red wine, however. I simply don't get it. (Truth to tell, my mind is not open to it.)
> I'm eating very little cheese these days - it's mainly Tsk.
> when needed to subdue chocolate cravings - and I never > took up the habit of putting cheese on spaghetti. Nonono. To be Proper, bolognaise sauce should have a healthy dollop of at least one kind of tangy cheese as an ingredient. The garnish is a nindependent matter.
A good, strong mature Cheddar is an acceptable ingredient, even if arguably not canonically Italian. But, without it, you're on the slippery slope that leads to school-lunch spag. bol., and that's a nabyss you don't wanna look into.
> As for > fatty beef: the butchers and supermarkets are really > pushing so-called "heart-safe" lean meat these days, to > the point where it would be hard to buy fatty meat if you > wanted to. My knowledge of American meat must be well out This is sadly true, meaning that it's difficult to get a roll of beef with the Proper exterior coating of fat that is so crucial for a Proper roast. Fortunately, as with so much else in Life, this can be overcome by sheer bloody-[1]mindedness.
> of date by now, but back when I lived in the USA the meat > was all very fatty, much of it was noticeably marbled, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > animals has been moderated by the recognition of an > obesity crisis among the diners, but I strongly suspect I had the impression that straight portion-size was emerging as the leading culprit. Does anyone know?
> that much Australian meat would still be judged as "not > fatty enough" in the US market. > In brief, there never was a lot of fat in my diet. The > things I need to watch are the sugars and related items, > which get metabolised into fat once they go down the > hatch. You're doing it again. <shudders> <reaches for the red wine>
> We need some carbohydrates, of course, but the > quantity needs to governed by the amount we're going to > burn by exercise. [nervously] Okay, that does it - if you're gratuitously going to bring up the topic of <twitch> <whisper> exercise, I think I'll take my ball and go home.
[1] The hyphen is kosher because "bloody" is a nadjective and knotter nadwerb.
 Signature Nat
"...a light scattering of snarky pedants, and a great many helpful people who occasionally descend into jackassery, a couple of saints, and a few wingnuts." --Matthew Shepherd, on and of alt.usage.english
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 23 Nov 2007 21:32 GMT On Nov 23, 11:10 am, Peter Moylan <pe...@DIESPAMMERSDIEpmoylan.org> wrote:
> >> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I think I do, though it's been something like 20 years since I knew anyone who'd share an anchovy pizza with me.
By the way, possibly my best effort ever at real cooking was a turkey breast tonnato with, among other things, anchovies. About as long ago.
[spaghetti bolognese and stuff]
> I haven't had a bolognaise sauce since I vowed to give up carbohydrates. > I'd welcome any suggestions as to what else it could be poured over. A > Kaiser salad might just qualify, but I'm not totally sure. ...
Tofu?
Take it easy! You said you'd welcome suggestions!
How about mushrooms? Eggplant? Zucchini? Choko/chayote? Canned tuna is another possibility, with peas if you allow them to yourself. (There are of course carbohydrates in tomatoes too, and for that matter in 'chovies.)
Come to think of it, I can't see any objection to putting your favorite pasta sauce on most kinds of meat, starting with chicken breast and veal.
Obaue: /'&n,tSoUvi/? /'&ntS@,vi/? /&n'tSoUvi/?
-- Jerry Friedman
Skitt - 23 Nov 2007 22:45 GMT >>>> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? > > I think I do, though it's been something like 20 years since I knew > anyone who'd share an anchovy pizza with me. Yeah, about 40 years ago I did my table tennis coach the favor of sharing an anchovy pizza with him, after a night's practice. That is the only time I have eaten one.
 Signature Skitt sometimes too nice for his own good
Father Ignatius - 24 Nov 2007 05:22 GMT >>>>> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > favor of sharing an anchovy pizza with him, after a > night's practice. That is the only time I have eaten one. This suggests, in more ways than one, that you were at diplomacy school.
Skitt - 24 Nov 2007 17:21 GMT >>>>>> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This suggests, in more ways than one, that you were at > diplomacy school. Naah, he was a really nice guy. He had built the table tennis club building on his big apricot farm property. Aside from being an apricot grower, he was a reserve driver for the fire department. And he coached table tennis. And loved anchovy pizza. RIP, SL.
 Signature Skitt
Wood Avens - 23 Nov 2007 17:20 GMT >Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never quite >understood how they came to be classified as a food. I like them, in limited quantities and under appropriate conditions. On a pizza, among other ingredients, for instance. In a Caesar salad (though this would not, it seems, be an Original Caesar salad). And in the form of the incomparable Patum Peperium, The Gentleman's Relish.
 Signature Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Mike Lyle - 23 Nov 2007 18:49 GMT >> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never quite >> understood how they came to be classified as a food. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in the form of the incomparable Patum Peperium, The Gentleman's > Relish. And salade nicoise: mm! I think they're terrific, to the extent that every now and then I have to eat a few of them neat. They're in Worcestershire sauce.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Paul Wolff - 23 Nov 2007 19:57 GMT >Wood Avens wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >every now and then I have to eat a few of them neat. They're in >Worcestershire sauce. Hard-boil some hens' eggs, shell then cut them in half lengthways, take out the yolks and pound them with anchovies; mix to a cream with mayonnaise, and pipe and pile back into the yolk-sockets in the half whites. Maybe add a caper on top of every alternate one.
And with a six-shilling bottle of moules du pape*: a feast fit for a king.
I haven't tried this (yet).
*I'm sure this ain't so, but it's all that memory offers. Moules du pape? I ask you. Kenneth Williams would do better.
 Signature Paul In bocca al Lupo!
Father Ignatius - 23 Nov 2007 20:08 GMT > Hard-boil some hens' eggs, shell then cut them in half > lengthways, take out the yolks and pound them with > anchovies; mix to a cream with mayonnaise, and pipe and > pile back into the yolk-sockets in the half whites. Maybe > add a caper on top of every alternate one. Danger, Will Robinson! 1960s throwback!
> And with a six-shilling bottle of moules du pape*: a feast > fit for a king. Châteauneuf-du-Pape, my dear fellow.
> *I'm sure this ain't so, but it's all that memory offers. > Moules du pape? I ask you. Kenneth Williams would do > better. Paul Wolff - 30 Nov 2007 22:50 GMT >> Hard-boil some hens' eggs, shell then cut them in half >> lengthways, take out the yolks and pound them with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> Moules du pape? I ask you. Kenneth Williams would do >> better. The circle is closing. When researching the specific Times Furnishing Company line in response to another Fr. Nat post, I found an answer: Mule du Pape, at least in this transcription:
http://www.iankitching.me.uk/humour/hippo/design.html
"...with a six-shilling bottle of Mule du Pape, a feast fit for a King."
My ears can't tell mule from moules. Crikey, what risks!
See the footnote:
Mule du Pape
Thanks to Frank Young for this explanation:
Flanders is using a triple integrated pun and allusion here. The title "La Mule du Pape" is that of a short story by, I think, Alphonse Daudet. In the story, which takes place in the fourteenth century at Avignon, the pope's mule is, indeed, well treated when it appears in public carrying the pope. But when it is returned to the care of its keeper, it is mistreated badly. Eventually, the mule has its revenge.
Daudet lived for many years in Provence, very near the town of Chateauneuf-du-Pape, which is famous for its wine. Indeed, in the town today there is a restaurant called "La Mule du Pape" in commemoration of the story - I found it on the WWW with a "Dogpile" search.
Hence, the bad wine "Mule du Pape" embodies an allusion to Chateauneuf-du-Pape and its wine, to Alphone Daudet, and to the animal story, "La Mule du Pape."
 Signature Paul In bocca al Lupo!
the Omrud - 24 Nov 2007 10:09 GMT mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk had it ...
> >> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never quite > >> understood how they came to be classified as a food. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > every now and then I have to eat a few of them neat. They're in > Worcestershire sauce. Ditto to both of those. Some of the anchovies sold in England are unspeakable. The real thing can be had along the Costa Brava, where the coast is dotted with anchovy bottling plants. Delicious.
 Signature David
Father Ignatius - 23 Nov 2007 20:15 GMT > In a Caesar salad > (though this would not, it seems, be an Original Caesar > salad). A Tuscan salad, then.
Hatunen - 23 Nov 2007 18:33 GMT >Related comment: at Subway, which sells surprisingly good sandwiches [1] for >a junk food shop, a great many customers have memorised the phrase >"everything except the jalapeños". > >[1] Except that their "six inchers" are only four inches long. Obviously run by men.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Skitt - 23 Nov 2007 18:56 GMT > Related comment: at Subway, which sells surprisingly good sandwiches > [1] for a junk food shop, a great many customers have memorised the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ruler. They're taking advantage of the fact that most people have > never learnt how long an inch is. Well, around here, a six-incher costs $2.99, I believe. Presenting $2 for the four-inch sandwich should be deemed adequate. Plus tax, of course.
 Signature Skitt prefers Quizno's
Amethyst Deceiver - 29 Nov 2007 15:02 GMT >>> Your objection is noted. Of equal importance to this group, I do >>> not like anchovies. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never quite > understood how they came to be classified as a food. Me. Don't get me started on the subject of "extra anchovies".
> Related comment: at Subway, which sells surprisingly good sandwiches > [1] for a junk food shop, a great many customers have memorised the > phrase "everything except the jalapeños". When I could eat there, I used to ask for extra.
 Signature Linz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary
Richard Bollard - 29 Nov 2007 21:50 GMT >>>> Your objection is noted. Of equal importance to this group, I do >>>> not like anchovies. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never quite >> understood how they came to be classified as a food. Missed this one. <waves hand> I quite like them (now).
They add a hard-to-define background note to pasta sauces like bolognese. Dissolve one or two when you sweat off the onions and garlic before adding the meat and other bits.
Quite like them on pizza with black olives (stone in pleeease) and pepperoni.
Easy snack with good cocktail party wow factor: get a sheet of puff pastry. Every two inches or so put a line of anchovy across sheet. Place second sheet over to create two-ply pastry with occasional anchovy filling, press to seal plypastry. Cut sheet into strips perpendicular to anchovy lines. Twist strips coupla times, sprinkle with a bit of parmesan and bake at 200 degrees Celsius. Serve as if they were breadsticks but sexier.
Alternative, vary the filling lines. Alternate anchovy, olive paste and sundried (or even sun-dried) tomato strips. Even sexier.
 Signature Richard Bollard Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Oleg Lego - 23 Nov 2007 19:57 GMT >> >> >> > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there >> >> >> > > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >was not to understand what GG stood for but to signal an >objection to the use of abbreviations. In that case, please consider this response to be an objection to your objection to the use of abbreviations.
>Please look again at the exchange in question and consider >it from the standpoint that I did not really care what GG [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Contempt registered. When properly interpreted, no reason >to think that I cared what GG stood for. Contempt registered back at ya.
ANHAC. TOINE.
|'o'..'o'| - 20 Nov 2007 13:44 GMT > >> Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false" clause. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Point taken. Indeed, one of the great strengths of the Roman Empire was > that, as it expanded, it allowed the absorbed people to keep their own gods. In contrast with that were the Jews and Christians. The story of Androcles and the Lion has a bunch of Christians who are to be fed to wild beasts because they won't accept the Roman gods.
> Now that I think of it, the theology of the early Jews, as expounded in > the Bible, clearly accepted that there were different gods for different [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Faced with this evidence, I'd better withdraw my original statement. I > wasn't thinking clearly enough. Father Ignatius - 20 Nov 2007 14:07 GMT >> Point taken. Indeed, one of the great strengths of the >> Roman Empire was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > who are to be fed to wild beasts because they won't accept > the Roman gods. My understanding of that is that Christians weren't persecuted so much for having their own god as for being a political pain in the butt.
Peter Moylan - 21 Nov 2007 09:40 GMT > My understanding of that is that Christians weren't persecuted so > much for having their own god as for being a political pain in the > butt. So it shouldn't be surprising that there are Christians today who are determined to continue that tradition.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Hatunen - 20 Nov 2007 19:39 GMT >> >> Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false" clause. >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >who are to be fed to wild beasts because they won't accept >the Roman gods. The Romans didn't give a damn about your personal religion with one proviso: you had to pay at least lip service to the Roman gods, especially since one of them was the emperor. The Jews refused to pay minimal respect to the Roman gods.
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Evan Kirshenbaum - 26 Nov 2007 23:13 GMT >>> Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false" >>> clause. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > god" in the stories, but I can't recall any examples of claims that > "your god doesn't exist". My understanding is that that view lagely shows up with Deutero-Isaiah (the guy who wrote verses 40-66 of the Book of Isaiah) who wrote near the end of the Babylonian Exile, so mid sixth century BC, probably about a century after the Torah (along with some of the rest) was completed.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Society in every state is a blessing, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |but government, even in its best Palo Alto, CA 94304 |state is but a necessary evil; in its |worst state, an intolerable one. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Thomas Paine (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Richard Maurer - 21 Nov 2007 05:14 GMT anonymous wrote or quoted: It is enough to know that, with the exception of one, each of the 114 chapters of the Qur'an begins with the verse " In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate".
I would like to know if there are three or ten stories illustrating Mercy and Compassion, or are the concepts just dogmatically announced (113 times)?
Are any of the stories about situation where Allah did not cause the trouble in the first place?
-- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|