Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2010



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Calendars - sort of OT

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Cheryl - 05 Jan 2010 19:50 GMT
I hadn't realized quite how much of my reading ability isn't so much in
interpreting printed words as in interpreting patterns.

I usually get a large wall calendar every year from a friend in
Australia, and every year I put it up in my office. This year, I rapidly
discovered Something was Wrong, so I examined the calendar more closely.

I knew that it is possible to get calendars that vary from Sunday to
Saturday across the top, but hadn't happened to use them. And if anyone
had asked me how I use a calendar, I would have said I read what is on
it. This one, however, goes from Monday-Sunday, and I quickly realized
that I was not actually reading 'Wednesday', looking a row down, and
reading '6'. I was picking out the number in the centre of the first
row, reading that, and concluding 'Wednesday is the 7th'.

I would never have thought such a minor change would confuse my reading
skills to that extent!
Signature

Cheryl

Mike Barnes - 06 Jan 2010 09:52 GMT
Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>:
>I knew that it is possible to get calendars that vary from Sunday to
>Saturday across the top, but hadn't happened to use them.

Most calendars in North America are like that, aren't they?

Oops! Scrub that comment. On a tenth reading I see what you meant. Vary
as in "don't go", not vary as in "go".

>And if anyone had asked me how I use a calendar, I would have said I
>read what is on it. This one, however, goes from Monday-Sunday,
>and I quickly realized that I was not actually reading 'Wednesday',
>looking a row down, and reading '6'. I was picking out the number in
>the centre of the first row, reading that, and concluding 'Wednesday is
>the 7th'.

You obviously have a strong sense of place, as I do. I would never buy a
calendar where weeks apparently started on Sunday. Also, somewhat
irrelevantly, I have a strong preference for days of the week down the
side, not across the top.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Cheryl - 06 Jan 2010 11:28 GMT
> Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>:
>> I knew that it is possible to get calendars that vary from Sunday to
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> irrelevantly, I have a strong preference for days of the week down the
> side, not across the top.

I've never seen one with the days down the side. That would really
confuse me!

Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen starts
the week on a Sunday. I know others exist, because those versions are
options sometimes when I use a template or some computer program to
generate a calendar, but I've never used one.

Conventions (like which day comes first)are only helpful so long as they
are observed!

Signature

Cheryl

Nick Spalding - 06 Jan 2010 11:39 GMT
Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net>
on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330:

> Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen starts
> the week on a Sunday. I know others exist, because those versions are
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Conventions (like which day comes first)are only helpful so long as they
> are observed!

The convention in the UK and Ireland is Monday first.  Microsoft knows
this.  With my normal regional settings for Ireland the Windows calendar
starts on Monday and the same if I set them to UK.  If I change them to
USA it starts on Sunday.
Signature

Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

Cheryl - 06 Jan 2010 11:56 GMT
> Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net>
>  on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> starts on Monday and the same if I set them to UK.  If I change them to
> USA it starts on Sunday.

It must be the convention in New Zealand as well, since that's where the
calendar comes from.

I'm sure the ones from Australia I've had started on Sunday.

Signature

Cheryl

annily - 06 Jan 2010 22:45 GMT
>> Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net>
>>  on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330:
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> I'm sure the ones from Australia I've had started on Sunday.

Yes, most Australian calendars I have seen start on Sunday.

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

Robert Bannister - 07 Jan 2010 01:18 GMT
>>> Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net>
>>>  on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330:
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Yes, most Australian calendars I have seen start on Sunday.

That's because you're not looking at the Monday start ones. They're
definitely around.

Signature

Rob Bannister

annily - 07 Jan 2010 06:03 GMT
>>>> Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net>
>>>>  on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330:
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> That's because you're not looking at the Monday start ones. They're
> definitely around.

Well, I don't actually look at calendars that much, but perhaps the
Monday start ones are a newer invention here in Australia. I still
suspect they'd be in the minority though.

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

Nick Spalding - 07 Jan 2010 11:36 GMT
Robert Bannister wrote, in <7qkr3jFpc8U9@mid.individual.net>
on Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:18:43 +0800:

> >>> Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net>
> >>>  on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330:
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> That's because you're not looking at the Monday start ones. They're
> definitely around.

Windows thinks it should be Monday.
Signature

Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

Robert Bannister - 07 Jan 2010 01:17 GMT
>> Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net>
>>  on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330:
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> I'm sure the ones from Australia I've had started on Sunday.

Last year I had both. (This year, I was only given one calendar, so I
had buy one - I think they're both Sunday starters, but there's no
reason to expect that).

Signature

Rob Bannister

Apteryx - 09 Jan 2010 21:39 GMT
>> Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFkacU3@mid.individual.net>
>>  on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330:
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> It must be the convention in New Zealand as well, since that's where the
> calendar comes from.

I don't think there is a fixed convention in New Zealand. I keep old
calendars (to reuse when January 1 falls on the same day of the week) so
I have a collection currently of 12 going back to 1989 and extending to
this year (the other one I am using this year is from 1993). They all
start the week on Sunday, except for one of two I have for 2003, which
starts on Monday.

But on checking Windows Calendar, I found the calendar running from
Monday to Sunday. I changed it to be consistent with (most) of my paper
calendars.

I must admit I hadn't noticed the difference before.

Apteryx
Yusuf B Gursey - 07 Jan 2010 03:46 GMT
> Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFka...@mid.individual.net>
>  on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> starts on Monday and the same if I set them to UK.  If I change them to
> USA it starts on Sunday.

the week starting on Sunday is older, Hebrew yom ri:*sh*on (from the
word "head", i.e. beginning), yawmu~l'aHad in arabic ("first day").

> --
> Nick Spalding
> BrE/IrE
Yusuf B Gursey - 08 Jan 2010 11:55 GMT
> > Cheryl wrote, in <7qjafnFka...@mid.individual.net>
> >  on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:58:54 -0330:
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> the week starting on Sunday is older, Hebrew yom ri:*sh*on (from the
> word "head", i.e. beginning), yawmu~l'aHad in arabic ("first day").

the concept of the week came from the Middle East, but before
Constantine.

> > --
> > Nick Spalding
> > BrE/IrE
Mike Barnes - 06 Jan 2010 12:00 GMT
Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>:
>> Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>:
>>> I knew that it is possible to get calendars that vary from Sunday to
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>I've never seen one with the days down the side.

 http://www.ataglance.uk.com/ataglance_website/images/90M-600.jpg

>That would really confuse me!

I imagine it would, but I like to cut off past weeks so that I can see
at least three weeks ahead. That's not possible with the traditional
design.

>Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen
>starts the week on a Sunday.

I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks starts
on Monday and calendars generally reflect this. Of course there are
exceptions, usually designed for other markets and thoughtlessly
imported.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Bertel Lund Hansen - 06 Jan 2010 14:50 GMT
Mike Barnes skrev:

> I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks starts
> on Monday and calendars generally reflect this. Of course there are
> exceptions, usually designed for other markets and thoughtlessly
> imported.

Danish calenders start on Monday. That may be because somebody
takes "weekend" literally.

Signature

Bertel, Denmark

James Hogg - 06 Jan 2010 14:59 GMT
> Mike Barnes skrev:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Danish calenders start on Monday. That may be because somebody takes
> "weekend" literally.

It's also sensible to have Saturday and Sunday side by side, not only in
real life but also on the calendar.

Signature

James

Peter Moylan - 08 Jan 2010 13:16 GMT
>> Mike Barnes skrev:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> It's also sensible to have Saturday and Sunday side by side, not only in
> real life but also on the calendar.

I've just checked my (only) Australian calendar. It starts on a Sunday.

I assume that everyone has seen the calendar that starts with "Mirday".
That's the day at the end of the month, and before the start of the new
month, where miracles assure that accounts will be balanced and the the
new month will start with a clean slate.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

R H Draney - 06 Jan 2010 18:34 GMT
Bertel Lund Hansen filted:

>Mike Barnes skrev:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Danish calenders start on Monday. That may be because somebody
>takes "weekend" literally.

American calendars start on Sunday because somebody takes "weekend"
literally...like a piece of rope, a week has two ends, one at the start and the
other at the finish....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Mike Barnes - 06 Jan 2010 20:17 GMT
R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>:
>American calendars start on Sunday because somebody takes "weekend"
>literally...like a piece of rope, a week has two ends, one at the start and the
>other at the finish....r

That would make it "weekends". Which it isn't.

British calendars start on Monday so that the weekend is at the end of
the week. Our brains are too small to cope with anything more
complicated than that.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Steve Hayes - 07 Jan 2010 05:33 GMT
>British calendars start on Monday so that the weekend is at the end of
>the week. Our brains are too small to cope with anything more
>complicated than that.

When did they start doing that?

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Mike Barnes - 07 Jan 2010 08:27 GMT
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net>:

>>British calendars start on Monday so that the weekend is at the end of
>>the week. Our brains are too small to cope with anything more
>>complicated than that.
>
>When did they start doing that?

I've no idea. I don't remember things being any different.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Steve Hayes - 07 Jan 2010 20:34 GMT
>Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net>:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>I've no idea. I don't remember things being any different.

I first enountered the Monday start to diaries etc among the Dutch in the
1960s. In both Britian and South Africa they started with Sunday. Now it's
impossible to get one that starts with Sunday, but some computer versions let
you choose.

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Bertel Lund Hansen - 08 Jan 2010 06:13 GMT
Steve Hayes skrev:

> I first enountered the Monday start to diaries etc among the Dutch in the
> 1960s. In both Britian and South Africa they started with Sunday. Now it's
> impossible to get one that starts with Sunday, but some computer versions let
> you choose.

My Sony-Ericsson cell phone (a few years old) lets me choose to
start the calender with Sunday or Monday.

Signature

Bertel, Denmark

Steve Hayes - 08 Jan 2010 06:52 GMT
>Steve Hayes skrev:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>My Sony-Ericsson cell phone (a few years old) lets me choose to
>start the calender with Sunday or Monday.

And so does Google calendar and similar kinds of calendar software.

My problem is with printed diaries.

Some of them do not print the date very clearly, and as I get older I can't
see as well. As others have mentioned there, one remembers numbers as a series
of fingerstrokes. So I don't go off to fetch my reading glasses to disarm the
burglar alarm. I just press the keys from knowing their positions.

So with diaries -- I note an appointment by the space on the page. And on a
few occasions I've turned up a day early, because the stupid diary publishers
began the week on Monday instead of Sunday.

I had the same problem when I used MS Outlook, where the days and dates are
hard to see. And though I had set it to begin the week with Sunday, it didn't
seem to work, and so I entered appointments in the wrong space. I stopped
using MS Outlook for that reason.

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Mike Barnes - 08 Jan 2010 07:18 GMT
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net>:
>So with diaries -- I note an appointment by the space on the page. And on a
>few occasions I've turned up a day early, because the stupid diary publishers
>began the week on Monday instead of Sunday.

There's nothing stupid about publishing that sort of diary. The stupid
thing is selling it where it conflicts with local custom.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Bertel Lund Hansen - 06 Jan 2010 23:12 GMT
R H Draney skrev:

> American calendars start on Sunday because somebody takes "weekend"
> literally...like a piece of rope, a week has two ends, one at the start and the
> other at the finish....r

A piece of rope can be turned either way.

Signature

Bertel, Denmark

R H Draney - 07 Jan 2010 06:24 GMT
Bertel Lund Hansen filted:

>R H Draney skrev:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>A piece of rope can be turned either way.

ObTopology: but that doesn't change the number of ends....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Bertel Lund Hansen - 07 Jan 2010 09:16 GMT
R H Draney skrev:

> >A piece of rope can be turned either way.

> ObTopology: but that doesn't change the number of ends....r

No, but it explains why you can't designate one of them as the
start.

Alas, the week can be 'turned around', which ruins my argument.

Signature

Bertel, Denmark

John Varela - 06 Jan 2010 20:18 GMT
> Mike Barnes skrev:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Danish calenders start on Monday. That may be because somebody
> takes "weekend" literally.

I've always assumed it has to do with differing opinion as to which
is the seventh day, the Sabbath.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Evan Kirshenbaum - 06 Jan 2010 22:51 GMT
>> Mike Barnes skrev:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I've always assumed it has to do with differing opinion as to which
> is the seventh day, the Sabbath.

So the North Americans go with the older Jewish sabbath and the
Europeans with the Christian one that replaced it?

I'm curious, though, do Christians (Seventh-Day Adventists excepted)
really think of Sunday as the sabbath described in the Genesis story?
That would be hard to reconcile with the gospels, which had Jesus
crucified on Friday because it had to be finished before the sabbath
and the women finding him missing on Sunday morning, after the sabbath
was over.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Other computer companies have spent
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |15 years working on fault-tolerant
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |computers.  Microsoft has spent
                                      |its time more fruitfully, working
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |on fault-tolerant *users*.
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

franzi - 06 Jan 2010 23:24 GMT
> >> Mike Barnes skrev:
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> I'm curious, though, do Christians (Seventh-Day Adventists excepted)
> really think of Sunday as the sabbath described in the Genesis story?

British Christians do, no doubt with some hidden dissenters. Sunday is
the Sabbath in this country at the Protestant end of the Christian
scale especially, and at the northwestern end of the Protestant scale
especially.

The Scotsman reported on Hebridean Sabbath-breaking six months ago:
<http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Breakdown-of-Sabbath-ferry-is.
5471947.jp>

> That would be hard to reconcile with the gospels, which had Jesus
> crucified on Friday because it had to be finished before the sabbath
> and the women finding him missing on Sunday morning, after the sabbath
> was over.

That would be the Jewish sabbath, a different thing altogether.

Here's another straw in the British Christian Sabbath wind:

Monday's child is fair of face,
Tuesday's child is full of grace.
Wednesday's child is full of woe,
Thursday's child has far to go.
Friday's child is loving and giving,
Saturday's child works hard for his living.
But the child that is born on the Sabbath day
Is bonny and blithe, and good and gay.

The seventh day on which God rested was Sunday, of course. Why else
should Sunday be the day of rest?

Irony alert, for those that need it.

But now I too am curious. Given that no-one was counting the days
accurately from the creation, who is to say with any authority which
named day of the hebdomadal cycle should be nominated to commemorate
God's successful week's work?
--
franzi
Evan Kirshenbaum - 06 Jan 2010 23:48 GMT
>> >> Mike Barnes skrev:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Christian scale especially, and at the northwestern end of the
> Protestant scale especially.

I have no doubt that they consider it the sabbath.  What I find harder
to believe is that they also consider it the "seventh day", since
their very own book calls it the "first day".

>> That would be hard to reconcile with the gospels, which had Jesus
>> crucified on Friday because it had to be finished before the sabbath
>> and the women finding him missing on Sunday morning, after the sabbath
>> was over.
>>
> That would be the Jewish sabbath, a different thing altogether.

Right, but that's the "seventh day" sabbath.  I had thought that the
popular notion was that the "Christian sabbath" was thought of as a
new thing, commemorating Jesus, and *not* the "and on the seventh day
God rested" sabbath of the creation story.

> Here's another straw in the British Christian Sabbath wind:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> The seventh day on which God rested was Sunday, of course. Why else
> should Sunday be the day of rest?

Spanish speakers also rest on Sunday, but their word for Saturday is
"sábado".  Interestingly, the DRAE defines this as

   Sexto día de la semana, séptimo de la semana litúrgica.

   Sixth day of the week, seventh of the liturgical week.

Their word for Sunday is "domingo", "the Lord's [day]"

> Irony alert, for those that need it.
>
> But now I too am curious. Given that no-one was counting the days
> accurately from the creation, who is to say with any authority which
> named day of the hebdomadal cycle should be nominated to commemorate
> God's successful week's work?

Why, God, of course.  No manna on Saturday; a double portion on Friday
to tide you over.  It's the kind of thing you notice, especially when
it appears right around the injunction to remember the sabbath.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |People think it must be fun to be a
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |super genius, but they don't
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |realize how hard it is to put up
                                      |with all the idiots in the world.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |                   Calvin
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Yusuf B Gursey - 07 Jan 2010 03:50 GMT
> >> >> Mike Barnes skrev:
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> new thing, commemorating Jesus, and *not* the "and on the seventh day
> God rested" sabbath of the creation story.

that's what I know, unless it is another contamination of the Roman
Sun (Sol Invictus) cult in Christainity.

> > Here's another straw in the British Christian Sabbath wind:
>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> --
> Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
Robert Bannister - 07 Jan 2010 01:22 GMT
>>>> Mike Barnes skrev:
>>>>> I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> --
> franzi

Moreover, why did He start on the moon's day before He had even created
the moon?

Signature

Rob Bannister

Bertel Lund Hansen - 07 Jan 2010 09:18 GMT
Robert Bannister skrev:

> Moreover, why did He start on the moon's day before He had even created
> the moon?

I suppose he couldn't even start on the first day? Were numbers
invented? Had ordinal numbers evolved?

Signature

Bertel, Denmark

Robert Bannister - 08 Jan 2010 01:27 GMT
> Robert Bannister skrev:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I suppose he couldn't even start on the first day? Were numbers
> invented? Had ordinal numbers evolved?

I'm beginning to think the whole thing was a bit like the moon landing -
a conspiracy faked in a Hollywood studio.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 08 Jan 2010 10:58 GMT
>> Robert Bannister skrev:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>I'm beginning to think the whole thing was a bit like the moon landing -
>a conspiracy faked in a Hollywood studio.

NASA had to choose Hollywood. Bollywood's bid was cheaper but the NASA
executives could not get their heads round the idea of lines of singing
dancers appearing behind Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon's surface.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Robert Bannister - 09 Jan 2010 00:02 GMT
>>> Robert Bannister skrev:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> executives could not get their heads round the idea of lines of singing
> dancers appearing behind Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon's surface.

That would have made a much better picture.

Signature

Rob Bannister

James Hogg - 09 Jan 2010 09:28 GMT
>>>> Robert Bannister skrev:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> That would have made a much better picture.

One small step for a man, one giant song-and-dance number for mankind."

Signature

James

Chuck Riggs - 07 Jan 2010 14:23 GMT
>>>>> Mike Barnes skrev:
>>>>>> I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>Moreover, why did He start on the moon's day before He had even created
>the moon?

Everyone knows that God's favourite language is Latin, not English.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Skitt - 07 Jan 2010 19:21 GMT
> Everyone knows that God's favourite language is Latin, not English.

Well, he had to learn it, because the Catholics were going to use it in
their services.
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 13:35 GMT
>> Everyone knows that God's favourite language is Latin, not English.
>
>Well, he had to learn it, because the Catholics were going to use it in
>their services.

The Big Guy knew what He was doing.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Cheryl - 07 Jan 2010 12:29 GMT
>>>> Mike Barnes skrev:
>>>>> I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> <http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Breakdown-of-Sabbath-ferry-is.
> 5471947.jp>

I've always thought of that use of 'Sabbath' as being merely a fancy
word for 'Sunday', not of a continuation of the Jewish idea of Sabbath.
But ideas vary.

>> That would be hard to reconcile with the gospels, which had Jesus
>> crucified on Friday because it had to be finished before the sabbath
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> --
> franzi

I don't think it was such a big issue in the past, before everyone had
calendars on their walls and thought that there was was something
unchangeable about their way of calculating dates. Someone picked a day
to commemorate the day of rest, and eventually everyone nearby found it
convenient to do the same thing on the same day. Later, people who
didn't know much about the situation took the choice as literal truth,
something like the date of Christmas.

I don't know why this is so hard for people. We pick convenient days to
commemorate everything from Labor to Secretaries.

Signature

Cheryl

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 07 Jan 2010 13:16 GMT
>>>>> Mike Barnes skrev:
>>>>>> I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>word for 'Sunday', not of a continuation of the Jewish idea of Sabbath.
>But ideas vary.

I understood it to be the use of Sabbath to mean a day devoted to
worship rather than work.

Where I live, Northern Ireland, most protestant churches run Sunday
Schools, on Sundays. A few small and purist denominations run Sabbath
Schools, on the Sabbath (Sunday to the rest of us). They reject the use
of a day name that originated with Sun-worship.

>>> That would be hard to reconcile with the gospels, which had Jesus
>>> crucified on Friday because it had to be finished before the sabbath
>>> and the women finding him missing on Sunday morning, after the sabbath
>>> was over.
>>>
>> That would be the Jewish sabbath, a different thing altogether.

There is a very long article here:
http://www.biblehistory.com/The%20Origin%20of%20Sunday%20Worship.html

It appears from what the writer says that Christians in the Roman sphere
of influence observed their Sabbath on Saturday. But on March 7, 321 the
emperor Constantine the Great issued a law:

   "On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people
   residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the
   country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and
   lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that
   another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for
   vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such
   operations the bounty of heaven should be lost." This was the first
   in a series of steps taken by Constantine and by later "Christian
   emperors" in regulating Sunday observance. It is obvious that this
   first Sunday law was not particularly Christian in orientation (note
   the pagan designation "venerable Day of the Sun"); but very likely
   Constantine, on political and social grounds, endeavored to merge
   together heathen and Christian elements of his constituency by
   focusing on a common practice. In A.D. 386, Theodosius I and Gratian
   Valentinian extended Sunday restrictions so that litigation should
   entirely cease on that day and there would be no public or private
   payment of debt. Laws forbidding circus, theater, and horse racing
   also followed and were reiterated as felt necessary.

The article goes on to describe how Christians adapted, over time, by
moving their sabbath observances from Saturday to Sunday.

The concept of the "Christian Sabbath" has been around for a very long
time even if the use the phrase is now limited.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Evan Kirshenbaum - 07 Jan 2010 16:40 GMT
> I understood it to be the use of Sabbath to mean a day devoted to
> worship rather than work.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Sabbath Schools, on the Sabbath (Sunday to the rest of us). They
> reject the use of a day name that originated with Sun-worship.

Interestingly, Jewish congregations I'm familiar with have their
religious schools on Sundays, as well, since it wouldn't be reasonable
to make the teachers work on the sabbath.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Voting in the House of
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |Representatives is done by means of a
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |little plastic card with a magnetic
                                      |strip on the back--like a VISA card,
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |but with no, that is, absolutely
   (650)857-7572                      |*no*, spending limit.
                                      |                  P.J. O'Rourke
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Mike Barnes - 07 Jan 2010 14:45 GMT
Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>:
>I don't think it was such a big issue in the past, before everyone had
>calendars on their walls and thought that there was was something
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>I don't know why this is so hard for people. We pick convenient days to
>commemorate everything from Labor to Secretaries.

Quite so. Also different cultures settle on different days, and there's
nothing remarkable about that either.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Robert Bannister - 08 Jan 2010 01:28 GMT
>>>>> Mike Barnes skrev:
>>>>>> I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks
[quoted text clipped - 62 lines]
> I don't know why this is so hard for people. We pick convenient days to
> commemorate everything from Labor to Secretaries.

And then we make sure all the shops and restaurants are open, so that
only the chosen few get a rest.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Cheryl - 07 Jan 2010 12:21 GMT
>>> Mike Barnes skrev:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> and the women finding him missing on Sunday morning, after the sabbath
> was over.

No, at least I don't. Sunday is a celebration of the Resurrection, not a
continuation of the Jewish Sabbath.

Of course, in a movement spanning a couple thousand years and quite a
few cultures, you do get some differences of opinion, and as you point
out, the SDA would disagree with me. I think there's one or two other
small Christian groups that observe Saturday as the Sabbath, too.

Now I've been thinking about it a bit, I wonder if it has something to
do with Sunday being the first day of the week, while Monday is only the
first day of the work week? The idea of a week-end, whether at one end
or both, must surely be fairly recent historically.

Signature

Cheryl

James Hogg - 07 Jan 2010 12:33 GMT
>>>> Mike Barnes skrev:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> only the first day of the work week? The idea of a week-end, whether
> at one end or both, must surely be fairly recent historically.

I was surprised that the earliest example in the OED is as old as it is,
from 1638:
"The greatest weight of the said exaction will fall upon very poor
people..who making every week a coarse kersey and being compelled to
sell the same at the week end..are nevertheless constrained to yield one
half penny apiece."

Perhaps a good indication of the relative recency of the concept is that
the English word "weekend" has been borrowed into other languages, such
as French and Danish.

Signature

James

Mike Lyle - 08 Jan 2010 20:23 GMT
[...]

> I was surprised that the earliest example [of "week end"] in the OED
> is as old as it
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> sell the same at the week end..are nevertheless constrained to yield
> one half penny apiece."

But isn't that simply "the week's end", not what we'd call "the
weekend"?

> Perhaps a good indication of the relative recency of the concept is
> that the English word "weekend" has been borrowed into other
> languages, such as French and Danish.

That's convincing. After all, the "first" day would just have been
called "Sunday", "the Lord's Day", or whatever. A whole new word wasn't
needed until working people started getting Saturday off.

(I've been told that in Mandate times, schools in Palestine ran only a
four-day week.)

Signature

Mike.

Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 13:52 GMT
<snip>

>Sunday is a celebration of the Resurrection, not a
>continuation of the Jewish Sabbath.

The Episcopalian sermons and Sunday school sessions I attended fifty
years ago taught me that church services are held on Sunday to
coincide with the metaphorical day of the week God rested, after
creating the universe.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Cheryl - 08 Jan 2010 14:22 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> coincide with the metaphorical day of the week God rested, after
> creating the universe.

I was raised in a different branch - C of E, or Anglican Church of
Canada as it is now, and although it was a day of rest, because we're
supposed to rest once every seven days, but I never got the idea that it
coincided with the original seventh day. I got the other explanation,
involving the resurrection.

Then again, Anglicans in my experience (and probably Episcopalians as
well) can and do disagree among themselves on a wide range of topics.

I even knew of one - a convert, yet, who I'd have thought would have
made a study of the subject when converting - who tried to tell me that
Episcopalians/Anglicans were Roman Catholic. Not 'catholic' in the
broader sense, not 'Catholic' or 'Anglo-Catholic' in the 'we got it
right when the Roman Catholics and Protestants didn't' sense, but
actually Roman Catholic.

Signature

Cheryl

CDB - 08 Jan 2010 17:10 GMT
[and on the weekend he rested]

> I even knew of one - a convert, yet, who I'd have thought would have
> made a study of the subject when converting - who tried to tell me
> that Episcopalians/Anglicans were Roman Catholic. Not 'catholic' in
> the broader sense, not 'Catholic' or 'Anglo-Catholic' in the 'we
> got it right when the Roman Catholics and Protestants didn't'
> sense, but actually Roman Catholic.

And now they can be, if we are to credit recent overtures from the
Ratican.
Cheryl - 08 Jan 2010 17:25 GMT
> [and on the weekend he rested]
>> I even knew of one - a convert, yet, who I'd have thought would have
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> And now they can be, if we are to credit recent overtures from the
> Ratican.

Well, the lack of a formal invitation never stopped Anglicans from
converting in the past, or for that matter, Roman Catholics converting
in the other direction.

I can see that if they (the Vatican) expect a lot of converts, they'll
be making plans and accommodations as announced. It's not unprecedented,
I believe - aren't there Greek Catholics? (Not Greek Orthodox, Catholics
looking to Rome).

I suspect, as a matter of terminology, once an Anglican converts, he or
she is no longer an Anglican (or Episcopalian).

Signature

Cheryl

CDB - 08 Jan 2010 22:12 GMT
>> [and on the weekend he rested]
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> converting in the past, or for that matter, Roman Catholics
> converting in the other direction.

Was he simply inviting converts?  I had assumed it was something a
little more generous, but didn't pay much attention (I'd have to
become a Christian to make the offer remotely relevant, and if I
belonged to a church it would be the Unitarian).

> I can see that if they (the Vatican) expect a lot of converts,
> they'll be making plans and accommodations as announced. It's not
> unprecedented, I believe - aren't there Greek Catholics? (Not Greek
> Orthodox, Catholics looking to Rome).

Heard of them.

> I suspect, as a matter of terminology, once an Anglican converts,
> he or she is no longer an Anglican (or Episcopalian).
.
Perhaps.  I confess that the organisational aspect of religion has
never appealed to me, on the grounds that the resulting chance of
real-world power inevitably attracts the wrong sort of people into the
organisation.  They made the trains run on time, though, give them
that.
Cheryl - 09 Jan 2010 12:43 GMT
>>> [and on the weekend he rested]
>>>> I even knew of one - a convert, yet, who I'd have thought would
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> become a Christian to make the offer remotely relevant, and if I
> belonged to a church it would be the Unitarian).

Yes, as I mentioned below, he was offering accommodation for various
bits of the Anglican traditions; not an unprecedented situation. At
least, that's my understanding of it.

Once I figured out that the Unitarians were not the same as the United
Church of Canada, I didn't really understand them at all. I don't really
see the point of a religion in which a belief in God appears to be
optional. I must be missing something; lots of people don't seem to have
that problem with being Unitarian.

>> I can see that if they (the Vatican) expect a lot of converts,
>> they'll be making plans and accommodations as announced. It's not
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> organisation.  They made the trains run on time, though, give them
> that.

Real-world power is certainly a challenge to Christians (or anyone else,
for that matter). My interests tend to be quite broad, and religion,
being a very broad and ancient phenomena, is one of them.

Administrative trivia, on the other hand, doesn't interest me so much,
but an interestingly unusual offer from the RCs to the Anglicans does
pique my interest.

Signature

Cheryl

CDB - 09 Jan 2010 17:35 GMT
[suffer the little heretics]

>> Was he simply inviting converts?  I had assumed it was something a
>> little more generous, but didn't pay much attention (I'd have to
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> appears to be optional. I must be missing something; lots of people
> don't seem to have that problem with being Unitarian.
.
I know about the denomination only from the accounts of Unitarian
friends.  They say that they have a "Christian caucus", but I had
gathered they all believe in God in some form, as do I (FSVO "form").
Perhaps they include atheists or agnostics who share their
humanitarian principles and goals.  I'll ask if I get a chance to.

[...]
tony cooper - 09 Jan 2010 18:38 GMT
>[suffer the little heretics]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>Perhaps they include atheists or agnostics who share their
>humanitarian principles and goals.  I'll ask if I get a chance to.

I should know, because I've attended many Unitarian church services,
but I don't.  My mother sang in a Unitarian church choir for several
years.  I have a vague recollection of a Unitarian belief that there
is a God, but He is in your mind and not up in the clouds.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Skitt - 09 Jan 2010 19:14 GMT
>>>> Was he simply inviting converts?  I had assumed it was something a
>>>> little more generous, but didn't pay much attention (I'd have to
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> years.  I have a vague recollection of a Unitarian belief that there
> is a God, but He is in your mind and not up in the clouds.

There are several kinds of churches with the word "Unitarian" in their
designation, and some of them have members with various beliefs regarding
deities, Christianism, and such.

My non-believer mother, near the end of her life, joined some sort of
Unitarian church, but I never talked to her about that.  It may have been a
Unitarian Universalism church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

Signature

Skitt (Follower of the FOTIPU)
"The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic
and faith.  We have faith that they are pink; we logically know
that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley

CDB - 10 Jan 2010 18:30 GMT
>>>>> Was he simply inviting converts?  I had assumed it was
>>>>> something a little more generous, but didn't pay much attention
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

Yes, I should have said "Unitarian Universalist"; that's what my
friends are.  The article seems to clear up the question of doctrine.
You might infer that people interested in spiritual growth must
believe in the spirit, and therefore in God (in some form), but I
suppose some of them would say that's not how they define the word
"spirit".
Mike Lyle - 10 Jan 2010 22:27 GMT
[...]

>>>>> Once I figured out that the Unitarians were not the same as the
>>>>> United Church of Canada, I didn't really understand them at all.
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> suppose some of them would say that's not how they define the word
> "spirit".

You can be a Quaker (of the basic British kind: some American Friends'
Meetings are different) of any known religion or near-religion, though
there are those who are very uncomfortable indeed with the idea of
straying too far from the Christian heritage. I get the impression that
quite a few people (not just Quakers) perform impressive mental
acrobatics to avoid admitting to themselves that actually they're
atheists.

Signature

Mike.

Chuck Riggs - 11 Jan 2010 11:52 GMT
>[...]
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>acrobatics to avoid admitting to themselves that actually they're
>atheists.

The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Cheryl - 11 Jan 2010 12:15 GMT
>> You can be a Quaker (of the basic British kind: some American Friends'
>> Meetings are different) of any known religion or near-religion, though
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism.

I don't see why agnosticism is a cop-out; it seems perfectly valid to me
 to believe it is impossible to attain certainty on a number of issues,
including that of the existence of God, and of course, presumably the
agnostic group would also include those who think it is possible to be
certain one way or another, even though they personally aren't, at least
at this time.

I'm not sure of the mental acrobatics to avoid admitting atheism. Lots
of people go through mental acrobatics trying to understand the nature
of God, but deciding that God doesn't exist is far simpler. Lots of
people do it; in many circles it's the default position; no thought,
much less mental acrobatics, required.

Signature

Cheryl

HVS - 11 Jan 2010 14:40 GMT
On 11 Jan 2010, Cheryl wrote


>> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim
>> agnosticism.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> who think it is possible to be certain one way or another, even
> though they personally aren't, at least at this time.

I agree, particularly with the first of those groups.

I fail to see any cop-out in concluding that if a question is
inherently unanswerable, there is no point in asking it;  on the
contrary, it seems an entirely reasoned and rational response to such
questions.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Peter Moylan - 11 Jan 2010 13:38 GMT
> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism.

Just recently, in the context of internet dating, someone wrote to me "I
know that you're an agnostic". Well, wrong. I had clearly indicated on
that dating site that I was an atheist. It seems, though, that some
people consider "atheist" to be too strong a word, and use "agnostic" to
indicate a half-hearted atheist.

There is a strong existing tradition that agnostics are atheists who
don't have the strength of their convictions. The agnostics deny that,
as indeed they should. Still, it seems that there are a great many
people who consider "religious" to be the respectable position,
"agnostic" to be the domain of the intellectuals, and "atheist" as
indicating some sort of pact with the devil.

In a recent Australian poll, it was reported that 68% of respondents
believed in some sort of god. That didn't surprise me. What did
surprise, and frighten, me, was the fact that 25% of respondents
believed in the literal truth of the Christian Bible. That's scary. That
25% matched the 25% who identified themselves as atheists.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Evan Kirshenbaum - 11 Jan 2010 15:43 GMT
>> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> though, that some people consider "atheist" to be too strong a word,
> and use "agnostic" to indicate a half-hearted atheist.

Which is more than a bit strange, considering the origin, as a true
agnostic, having decided that it was impossible to know from evidence
whether or not there were gods, might well choose that the correct
course is to believe "on faith" anyway and so might be a stronger
believer than one who isn't sure.

> There is a strong existing tradition that agnostics are atheists who
> don't have the strength of their convictions. The agnostics deny
> that, as indeed they should. Still, it seems that there are a great
> many people who consider "religious" to be the respectable position,
> "agnostic" to be the domain of the intellectuals, and "atheist" as
> indicating some sort of pact with the devil.

Which brings up its own interesting images.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Those who study history are doomed
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |to watch others repeat it.
   Palo Alto, CA  94304

   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

CDB - 11 Jan 2010 17:12 GMT
>> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> "agnostic" to be the domain of the intellectuals, and "atheist" as
> indicating some sort of pact with the devil.

My mother claimed to be an agnostic but, as far as I could tell, was
an atheist; my father claimed to be an atheist but was an agnostic.
They were unwavering in their respective positions all the way into
the foxhole.  No whimpering palinodes under pressure.

> In a recent Australian poll, it was reported that 68% of respondents
> believed in some sort of god. That didn't surprise me. What did
> surprise, and frighten, me, was the fact that 25% of respondents
> believed in the literal truth of the Christian Bible. That's scary.
> That 25% matched the 25% who identified themselves as atheists.

Very useful, those idiots.  We really need two words for "agnostic":
one for those who can't decide if God exists, and one for those, like
me, who think God exists but is unknowable.
Mike Barnes - 11 Jan 2010 17:31 GMT
CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca>:
>We really need two words for "agnostic":
>one for those who can't decide if God exists, and one for those, like
>me, who think God exists but is unknowable.

Better, in my view, is to avoid the word altogether. If I want to know
what someone believes, I ask them what they believe, not what they
"are". If they tell me what they "are" (agnostic, atheist, Christian,
etc) I use that as a prompt for questions about their beliefs and
practices.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Nick - 11 Jan 2010 18:19 GMT
> CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca>:
>>We really need two words for "agnostic":
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> etc) I use that as a prompt for questions about their beliefs and
> practices.

Is "I don't" an acceptable response?  There seems to be a gap in the
thinking of a significant number of religious people who cannot see that
to many people the situation isn't one of "believing there isn't a God".
Signature

Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

Mike Barnes - 11 Jan 2010 19:07 GMT
Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk>:

>> CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca>:
>>>We really need two words for "agnostic":
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Is "I don't" an acceptable response?

Yes, but not one I'd give myself. I believe in (as in, I base my
behaviour on) rational thought.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 14:18 GMT
>Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk>:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>Yes, but not one I'd give myself. I believe in (as in, I base my
>behaviour on) rational thought.

That, plus I believe in logic, the Scientific Method and the evidence
at hand. Ergo, the odds against there being a supreme being that
created the universe appear, to me, to be astronomical.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Garrett Wollman - 11 Jan 2010 19:11 GMT
>> Better, in my view, is to avoid the word altogether. If I want to know
>> what someone believes, I ask them what they believe, not what they
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Is "I don't" an acceptable response?

No, that would actually be a cop-out.  There is no person alive who
entirely lacks philosophical commitments.  The most common sort of
atheist in the U.S. (and probably the UK too) are Western Humanistic
Materialists, but that's not the only kind.  (Some Buddhists, for
example.)

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

the Omrud - 11 Jan 2010 19:14 GMT
>>> Better, in my view, is to avoid the word altogether. If I want to know
>>> what someone believes, I ask them what they believe, not what they
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Materialists, but that's not the only kind.  (Some Buddhists, for
> example.)

I don't follow that at all.  I have philosophical committments, rules by
which I live, codes which inform my interactions with the world around
me, but I don't "believe".

It's my view that life is an accident of chemistry.

Signature

David

Garrett Wollman - 11 Jan 2010 19:24 GMT
>I don't follow that at all.  I have philosophical committments, rules by
>which I live, codes which inform my interactions with the world around
>me, but I don't "believe".
>
>It's my view that life is an accident of chemistry.

You contradict yourself.  (I suppose, then, that you must therefore
contain multitudes.)

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

Steve Hayes - 11 Jan 2010 22:13 GMT
>> No, that would actually be a cop-out.  There is no person alive who
>> entirely lacks philosophical commitments.  The most common sort of
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>It's my view that life is an accident of chemistry.

So you believe that your philosophical commitments (and presumably those of
everyone else) are accidents of chemistry?

Or is it your view that "It's my view" and "I believe" mean totally different
things?

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Robert Bannister - 12 Jan 2010 00:44 GMT
>>> No, that would actually be a cop-out.  There is no person alive who
>>> entirely lacks philosophical commitments.  The most common sort of
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Or is it your view that "It's my view" and "I believe" mean totally different
> things?

I would defend "It's my view" as being less strong than "I believe", but
the difference is not as great as that between "I believe" and "I
believe in".

Signature

Rob Bannister

Steve Hayes - 12 Jan 2010 05:03 GMT
>>>> No, that would actually be a cop-out.  There is no person alive who
>>>> entirely lacks philosophical commitments.  The most common sort of
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>the difference is not as great as that between "I believe" and "I
>believe in".

In my view "I believe", "I think" and "It is my view that" are near synonyms,
all of which mean that one believes something to be the case, but doesn't have
conclusive proof. For example, I believe that Tony Blair was a war criminal,.
I think that Tony Blair was a war criminal, it is my view that Tony Blair was
a war criminal. But until he appears as accused before a competent tribunal
charged with war crimes and is found guilty as charged there isn't conclusive
proof.

"I believe in" is somewhat different. It means more than simply believing
something to be the case. It means putting one's trust in a person, group, or
institution. So one could, conceivably, believe in Tony Blair as saviour, if
one believed that he had saved the world from Saddam Hussein's alleged
weapons. of mass destruction.

I use Tony Blair as an example here so that it can be discussed by atheists,
agnostics and theists on an equal footing, without confusing the issue with
other issues, such as the existence of God, so that we can discuss it as a
question of English usage rather than one of philosophy, religion, worldview
or metaphysics.

Of course it is quite possible for a solipsist not to believe in the existence
of Tony Blair, but in that case all bets are off.

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

R H Draney - 12 Jan 2010 06:09 GMT
Steve Hayes filted:

>"I believe in" is somewhat different. It means more than simply believing
>something to be the case. It means putting one's trust in a person, group, or
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>Of course it is quite possible for a solipsist not to believe in the existence
>of Tony Blair, but in that case all bets are off.

Hey, I can be just as solipsistic as the next guy!...r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Jerry Friedman - 12 Jan 2010 06:29 GMT
> Steve Hayes filted:
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Hey, I can be just as solipsistic as the next guy!...r

I'm an Aristotelian, but at the same time kind of not.

--
Jerry Friedman
the Omrud - 12 Jan 2010 09:10 GMT
>>> No, that would actually be a cop-out.  There is no person alive who
>>> entirely lacks philosophical commitments.  The most common sort of
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Or is it your view that "It's my view" and "I believe" mean totally different
> things?

Yes.  Different things.

Signature

David

annily - 12 Jan 2010 09:14 GMT
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:14:16 GMT, the
>> Omrud<usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Yes.  Different things.

So it's your view that life is an accident of chemistry, but do you
believe it?

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

the Omrud - 12 Jan 2010 10:20 GMT
>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:14:16 GMT, the
>>> Omrud<usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> So it's your view that life is an accident of chemistry, but do you
> believe it?

I don't know how to answer that.  I don't really understand the
question.  In this form, "I believe" is not about real-world facts.

Signature

David

annily - 12 Jan 2010 11:38 GMT
>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:14:16 GMT, the
>>>> Omrud<usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> I don't know how to answer that.  I don't really understand the
> question.  In this form, "I believe" is not about real-world facts.

Well, to me (and apparently to others here) "it's my view that life is
an accident of chemistry",  "I believe that life is an accident of
chemistry", and "I think that life is an accident of chemistry", all
mean the same thing. I guess I don't understand your different
interpretation of "believe" in this context.

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

LFS - 12 Jan 2010 11:59 GMT
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:14:16 GMT, the
>>>>> Omrud<usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> mean the same thing. I guess I don't understand your different
> interpretation of "believe" in this context.

I think that David's interpretation of "belief" implies some act of
faith that is possibly not supported by readily observable evidence.

I originally went on to discuss my own use of "I think" in that sentence
but this seemed tangential so I checked the OED definition of belief
which is interesting (I have only reproduced the first three definitions):

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1. The mental action, condition, or habit, of trusting to or
confiding in a person or thing; trust, dependence, reliance, confidence,
faith. Const. in (to, of obs.) a person.
  (Belief was the earlier word for what is now commonly called faith.
The latter originally meant in Eng. (as in OFrench) ‘loyalty to a person
to whom one is bound by promise or duty, or to one's promise or duty
itself,’ as in ‘to keep faith, to break faith,’ and the derivatives
faithful, faithless, in which there is no reference to ‘belief’; i.e.
‘faith’ was = fidelity, fealty. But the word faith being, through OF.
fei, feith, the etymological representative of the L. fides, it began in
the 14th c. to be used to translate the latter, and in course of time
almost superseded ‘belief,’ esp. in theological language, leaving
‘belief’ in great measure to the merely intellectual process or state in
sense 2. Thus ‘belief in God’ no longer means as much as ‘faith in God’
(cf. quot. 1814 in 2). See BELIEVE 1, and 1b.)

    b. absol. Trust in God; the Christian virtue of faith. arch. or Obs.

    {dag}c. out of belief: unbelieving, outside the pale of the faith. Obs.

    2. Mental acceptance of a proposition, statement, or fact, as true,
on the ground of authority or evidence; assent of the mind to a
statement, or to the truth of a fact beyond observation, on the
testimony of another, or to a fact or truth on the evidence of
consciousness; the mental condition involved in this assent. Constr. of
a statement, or (obs.) a speaker; that...; belief in (a thing);
persuasion of its existence.

    3. The thing believed; the proposition or set of propositions held
true; in early usage, esp. the doctrines believed by the professors of a
religious system, a religion. In modern use often simply = opinion,
persuasion.

    b. The term is applied by some philosophers to the primary or
ultimate principles of knowledge received on the evidence of
consciousness; intuition, natural judgement.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

James Hogg - 12 Jan 2010 12:18 GMT
> I think that David's interpretation of "belief" implies some act of
> faith that is possibly not supported by readily observable evidence.

That might rule out this:

"I believe for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows.
I believe that somewhere in the darkest night, a candle glows."

Signature

James

Chuck Riggs - 13 Jan 2010 14:39 GMT
>> I think that David's interpretation of "belief" implies some act of
>> faith that is possibly not supported by readily observable evidence.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>"I believe for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows.
>I believe that somewhere in the darkest night, a candle glows."

I BELIEVE.

(No fair, you got me fired up.)
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

the Omrud - 12 Jan 2010 12:17 GMT
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:14:16 GMT, the
>>>>> Omrud<usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> chemistry", and "I think that life is an accident of chemistry", all
> mean the same thing.

They do to me as well, in normal speech.  But this discussion started
with the following exchange:

On 11/01/2010 19:11, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article<87skacjyhn.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk>,
> Nick<3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk>  wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Materialists, but that's not the only kind.  (Some Buddhists, for
> example.)

I was discussing the meaning of "I believe" in the context of religion
and faith and whether an person can say he has no "beliefs".

Signature

David

Mike Barnes - 12 Jan 2010 12:30 GMT
the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com>:
>But this discussion started with the following exchange:
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>I was discussing the meaning of "I believe" in the context of religion
>and faith and whether an person can say he has no "beliefs".

Good, so was I.

I could say I believe it's going to snow again this afternoon. But it's
not a belief in the sense I was talking about, and I wouldn't expect to
get that kind of answer.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Steve Hayes - 12 Jan 2010 16:23 GMT
>I was discussing the meaning of "I believe" in the context of religion
>and faith and whether an person can say he has no "beliefs".

It might then be clearer to say that you have no religious beliefs (or
thoughts, or views).


Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Robin Bignall - 12 Jan 2010 22:39 GMT
>>I was discussing the meaning of "I believe" in the context of religion
>>and faith and whether an person can say he has no "beliefs".
>
>It might then be clearer to say that you have no religious beliefs (or
>thoughts, or views).

Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark.  Of
course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them
"unbelievers"*) have thoughts or views about religion.  Religion does
actually exist in the world, some people are exulted by it and a lot
of others have died because of it.  Unbelievers simply do not believe
that there is or was a God so its existence or not, and all that stems
from it, is irrelevant.

That does not mean that unbelievers have no philosophy of life.  Like
David's, my parents brought me up to behave fairly properly according
to most Western people's view of "proper", to believe in law and
order, and respect others.  One does not have the need of God, Hell
and damnation to behave responsibly.

As to life itself: the existence of life is a result of chemistry
given the right conditions.  Whether it is an accident, and therefore
rare, or pretty much a forgone conclusion in the right circumstances,
we do not yet know, because we do not know those "right" conditions
and even if we did we probably cannot yet duplicate them on earth.

* I distinguish between unbelievers and those atheists who spend a lot
of their time trying to prove that God does not exist.  In my view
these latter spend as much time thinking about religion as do
religious fundamentalists.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Garrett Wollman - 13 Jan 2010 02:28 GMT
>Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark.  Of
>course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them
>"unbelievers"*) have thoughts or views about religion.

There are no "people who have no religious beliefs".

>Religion does actually exist in the world, some people are exulted by
>it and a lot of others have died because of it.  Unbelievers simply
>do not believe that there is or was a God so its existence or not,
>and all that stems from it, is irrelevant.

And that is a religious belief equal in stature to all the rest of
'em.  Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that
belief.  Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one.

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

annily - 13 Jan 2010 03:06 GMT
>> Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark.  Of
>> course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them
>> "unbelievers"*) have thoughts or views about religion.
>
> There are no "people who have no religious beliefs".

That's a bold statement, and on reading the various meanings of religion
in OED and Macquarie, I would find it difficult to support. What meaning
do you apply to "religion", and do you have an authoritative source for
that meaning?

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

Steve Hayes - 13 Jan 2010 04:37 GMT
>>Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark.  Of
>>course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>'em.  Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that
>belief.  Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one.

I beg to differ.

While I agree that militant atheism falls into the category of religions, in
the case of non-militant atheists the cliche that "if atheism is a religion
the bals is a hair colour" happens to be true (in my view, of course).

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Mike Barnes - 13 Jan 2010 05:42 GMT
Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>:
>Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one.

That's not my understanding of the word "religion". Nor is it NSOED's
(truncated definitions below):

1 A state of life bound by religious vows; [...]
2 A particular monastic or religious order or rule.
3 Belief in or sensing of some superhuman controlling power or powers,
entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship, or in a system defining a
code of living, esp. as a means to achieve spiritual or material
improvement; [...]
4 A particular system of such belief.
5 Devotion, fidelity; conscientiousness; pious attachment.

It's hard to see where atheism qualifies as a religion in any of those
senses. So I assume you're using the word "religion" in some specialised
sense, rather than sense 3 above which is what most people understand by
the word.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Garrett Wollman - 13 Jan 2010 06:22 GMT
>Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>:
>>Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one.
>
>That's not my understanding of the word "religion". Nor is it NSOED's
>(truncated definitions below):

>It's hard to see where atheism qualifies as a religion in any of those
>senses.

I didn't say it was.  It is a category to which some religions (e.g.,
Western Humanistic Materialism) belong, and which some religions
partially overlap (e.g., some Unitarian-Universalists are atheists,
but not all).

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

Mike Barnes - 13 Jan 2010 14:33 GMT
Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>:
>>Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>:
>>>Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>partially overlap (e.g., some Unitarian-Universalists are atheists,
>but not all).

I understand that now, thanks. I'll respond to the words in question in
their fuller context, in another posting.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Peter Moylan - 13 Jan 2010 09:34 GMT
>> Religion does actually exist in the world, some people are exulted by
>> it and a lot of others have died because of it.  Unbelievers simply
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> 'em.  Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that
> belief.  Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one.

What would you call people who can't decide which god they don't believe in?

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

the Omrud - 13 Jan 2010 09:44 GMT
>> Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark.  Of
>> course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> 'em.  Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that
> belief.  Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one.

And there we will disagree.  It's my view that you are wrong.

Signature

David

Nick - 14 Jan 2010 08:14 GMT
>>> Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark.  Of
>>> course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> And there we will disagree.  It's my view that you are wrong.

I'm with David.  I view the preceding statement as just as barking as
the idea that because I don't follow any Rugby team I'm a supporter of
"no team".

I cannot see why the fact I have no religion needs a word that you
define as a religion, any more than the fact that I have no interest in
several sports, or knitting for that matter.  We don't have an
apyrographer for those people who don't spend their time burning words
in wood, why do we need a word for those who don't spend their time in
religious activity?
Signature

Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

Garrett Wollman - 14 Jan 2010 17:05 GMT
>I cannot see why the fact I have no religion needs a word that you
>define as a religion,

Because, I claim, "I have no religion" is a completely meaningless
statement.

>We don't have an apyrographer for those people who don't spend their
>time burning words in wood, why do we need a word for those who don't
>spend their time in religious activity?

Who said anything about activity?  I never mentioned anything about
activity.

-GAWollman
Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

annily - 15 Jan 2010 04:17 GMT
>> I cannot see why the fact I have no religion needs a word that you
>> define as a religion,
>
> Because, I claim, "I have no religion" is a completely meaningless
> statement.

And I (and most others here apparently) don't understand the rationale
behind that claim.

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

Garrett Wollman - 15 Jan 2010 05:20 GMT
>>> I cannot see why the fact I have no religion needs a word that you
>>> define as a religion,
>>
>> Because, I claim, "I have no religion" is a completely meaningless
>> statement.

>And I (and most others here apparently) don't understand the rationale
>behind that claim.

Every person has some set -- possibly unarticulated or even completely
unexplored -- of fundamental beliefs which determine how they interact
with the society in which they live and the world at large.  These are
called "beliefs" because they are not decidable propositions; in
formal-logic terms you could call them "axioms" (although I don't
claim that most people actually apply formal logic to their everyday
lives -- for one thing, most people's belief systems are so
inconsistent as to render this impossible).

For many people here, their most strongly-felt core belief appears to
be[0] materialism: the idea that there is nothing that exists but yet
is not in some way observable and measurable, "stuff"[1].  (They may
think that this is simply "logic" or "rationality" but it is not; ask
a Jesuit for a counterexample, if you happen have a day to waste.)  Of
course, most of the world's religions explicitly reject materialism,
but I see no principled argument by which it is any different in
nature from them, and I therefore claim that it is rightly called a
religion.

Most atheists, particularly in the West, are materialists, but it need
not necessarily be so.[2]  You cannot *prove* materialism; it is not
the logical consequence of any simpler and universally-accepted truth;
it is simply one way of looking at (and thinking about) the universe
in which one lives.  (On the other hand, it is sometimes convenient,
or even necessary, for those of us who are not materialists to assume
it as an axiom when working in some larger system, such as science,
where it has proved helpful.)

-GAWollman

[0] Based on public responses to this thread.

[1] In modern scientific language, mass-energy.

[2] Obvious example: there are people who do not believe in gods (and
are therefore atheists) but do believe in immaterial spirits or souls
or "planes of existence" (and thus are not materialists).
Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

annily - 15 Jan 2010 08:26 GMT
>>>> I cannot see why the fact I have no religion needs a word that you
>>>> define as a religion,
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> nature from them, and I therefore claim that it is rightly called a
> religion.

I don't believe that many people call materialism a religion. I cannot
find any dictionary reference to support this view.

This is what I (and I think most people) mean by religion, from the OED:

5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as
having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience,
reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting
from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or
the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a
standard of spiritual and practical life.

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

Garrett Wollman - 15 Jan 2010 17:18 GMT
>5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as
>having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience,
>reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting
>from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or
>the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a
>standard of spiritual and practical life.

That is a much more restrictive definition of "religion" than I would
accept, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

Skitt - 15 Jan 2010 18:36 GMT
>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as
>> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> That is a much more restrictive definition of "religion" than I would
> accept, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

Maybe not alone, but certainly in a small minority.  Whet you seem to be
including in your "religion" is "philosophy" -- a horse of another color
entirely.

While I have no religion, I do try to adhere to a personal code of fairness.
Not believing in some supernatural being who can forgive or overlook my
failures, I have to be careful about what I do, so as not to suffer great
pangs of conscience.  Such is life ...
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Cheryl - 15 Jan 2010 19:18 GMT
>>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as
>>> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience,
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> overlook my failures, I have to be careful about what I do, so as not to
> suffer great pangs of conscience.  Such is life ...

Maybe if I become more religious, I won't have pangs of conscience if I
fail to behave properly. I haven't actually noticed that people are less
likely to feel guilty about their failings if they are more religious -
in fact, plenty of people have claimed the opposite, that they're
plagued by guilt because of the are religious - but it's worth a try.

Signature

Cheryl

Skitt - 15 Jan 2010 19:23 GMT
>>>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as
>>>> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience,
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> they're plagued by guilt because of the are religious - but it's
> worth a try.

When I have attended Lutheran services, I have always been told that all is
forgiven.  I believe that the same holds for Catholics.  Repentance is
required, of course, but the slate is clean again.  Whew!
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Chuck Riggs - 16 Jan 2010 11:37 GMT
>>>>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as
>>>>> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience,
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>forgiven.  I believe that the same holds for Catholics.  Repentance is
>required, of course, but the slate is clean again.  Whew!

Which allows Catholics and others to go out and commit nasty deeds all
over again. Psychologically helpful to the individual, I am sure, but
I've never understood what advantage forgiveness has for society at
large.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Cheryl - 16 Jan 2010 13:21 GMT
>>>>>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as
>>>>>> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience,
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> I've never understood what advantage forgiveness has for society at
> large.

I think the standard response to that - and Skitt's comment - is that if
you haven't amended your life in the proper direction, some question
might be raised as to the honesty of your repentance and confession.
It's a delicate issue in the various Christian denominations - none of
them restrict the power of God to forgive, time and time again, and none
of them teach that all is needed is for the priest or pastor or you
personally to say the right words and you're just fine again. Some of
them go to considerable lengths to try to instill in the sinner a full
understanding of the scope of the sin - which is why I alluded some time
back in this discussion to the fact that some branches of Christianity,
at least, are accused of generating guilt in members, not releasing it.

Forgiveness is a fascinating topic, and it's incredibly important to
society at large. There are actually numerous takes on it. But as
generally used, it helps society immensely. It reduces violence and
division within a society by reducing (or removing) the likelihood that
the wronged person will skip the other big method of social control, the
legal system, and go after the other party directly. It enables every
human group from the family up to the nation state continue in existence
by providing a mechanism to resolve disputes. It enables wrongdoers to
be re-incorporated into the family, neighbourhood etc. If we had more
forgiveness around, we wouldn't be re-fighting battles that go back
centuries. I don't, myself, hold with offering forgiveness for things I
haven't done to people who haven't suffered the harm. That seems
totatlly meaningless. But for everyday functioning of society, it's
essential.

And it's really good for the wronged person psychologically, too.

Signature

Cheryl

Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 11:34 GMT
<snip>

>...some branches of Christianity,
>at least, are accused of generating guilt in members, not releasing it.

That was one of the reasons I quit attending even Episcopalian
services, where that tendency is usually not as pronounced as it is in
many other Protestant branches, from what I have heard.

<snip>
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Robert Bannister - 18 Jan 2010 01:08 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> <snip>

Now I just had to re-read what Cheryl said - I thought it was "quilt".

Signature

Rob Bannister

Cheryl - 18 Jan 2010 09:52 GMT
>> <snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Now I just had to re-read what Cheryl said - I thought it was "quilt".

Sometimes they make quilts, too, to sell or raffle off to make money for
charity---of course, so do non-religious groups.

And I just realized that religious groups don't have the monopoly on
guilt-induction either - it's often (but not always) non-religious ones
that work on making me feel guilty because I don't use the right light
bulbs or I eat meat.

Anyway, guilt, when appropriate, is a very useful (if unpleasant)
emotion. It's only a problem when people who haven't done anything wrong
start obsessing about how guilty they are.

Signature

Cheryl

sjdevnull@yahoo.com - 15 Jan 2010 20:05 GMT
> > annily  wrote:
> >> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> including in your "religion" is "philosophy" -- a horse of another color
> entirely.

I'm not sure about that; depending on how you read it, the definition
above seems as though it may reject religions that have non-
interventionist deities (who may have created the universe but no
longer exercise control over man's destiny).  It also seems possible
that it rejects certain polytheistic religions where no god is
necessarily entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship, but whether
and who to worship in a given situation is done more on a quid pro quo
basis.
Hatunen - 15 Jan 2010 21:52 GMT
>> > annily  wrote:
>> >> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>interventionist deities (who may have created the universe but no
>longer exercise control over man's destiny).

In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life.  

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Evan Kirshenbaum - 15 Jan 2010 22:47 GMT
>>> > annily  wrote:
>>> >> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life.  

In much the same way that, say, Einstein or Darwin or Mozart or
Shakespeare are irrelevant to modern life.  Since such deities would
be presumed to have left behind something that still exists (i.e., the
universe), I can certainly see a relevance to studying it in an
attempt to discern its maker's design principles and, perhaps,
intentions in doing so.  (Note that I'm not describing my own
religion, but I don't necessarily see any reason to disparage such a
religion.)  In much the same way that someone non-religious might
strive to make something of their life in order to live up to what
they see as the ideals of their now-dead parents (e.g., someone
irrelevant to their current life) and to justify their parents'
sacrifice for them, I can certainly see people saying "This is what
the gods who created us intended for us to do and we owe it to them to
do it, even though they're no longer around."

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |I like giving talks to industry,
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |because one of the things that I've
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |found is that you really can't
                                      |learn anything at the Harvard
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |Business School.
   (650)857-7572                      |           Clayton Christensen
                                      |           Harvard Business School
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Hatunen - 16 Jan 2010 00:55 GMT
>>>> > annily  wrote:
>>>> >> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>the gods who created us intended for us to do and we owe it to them to
>do it, even though they're no longer around."

Why do we owe it to them? What will they do about it if we're not
grateful?

Besides, what have they done for us lately?

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 01:17 GMT
>>>>> > annily  wrote:
>>>>> >> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Besides, what have they done for us lately?

The deities or the no-longer-around people who put us through college?

For the former, the answer will typically be something like: They set
up the world (intentionally or not) so that there's a way to behave in
it that will tend to lead to relative happiness and prosperity and a
way that will tend to result in collapse and misery.  If global
warming *was* due to "You broke rule 47", they'd argue, you'd have as
much incentive to stop breaking rule 47 as you have to stop doing
things that scientists say are responsible for it.  Clearly, we don't
*owe* anybody a particular sea level.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The whole idea of our government is
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |this:  if enough people get together
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |and act in concert, they can take
                                      |something and not pay for it.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |                  P.J. O'Rourke
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Hatunen - 16 Jan 2010 01:40 GMT
>>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life.  
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>The deities or the no-longer-around people who put us through college?

I put myself through college.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 03:05 GMT
>>>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life.  
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> I put myself through college.

Are you proffering that as an explanation for an inability to
empathize with those who feel that people who feel an obligation to
those who they see as having sacrificed for them?

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Bullwinkle: You sure that's the
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |            only way?
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |Rocky: Well, if you're going to be
                                      |       a hero, you've got to do
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |       stupid things every once in
   (650)857-7572                      |       a while.

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:11 GMT
>>>>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life.  
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>empathize with those who feel that people who feel an obligation to
>those who they see as having sacrificed for them?

No.

By the way, "What have you done for me lately?" is the punch line
to a very old joke.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 16 Jan 2010 11:04 GMT
>>>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life.  
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
>I put myself through college.

It was no-longer-around people who created the college and, more
importantly, gathered together together the knowledge and skills that
were imparted to you at college.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 16 Jan 2010 11:51 GMT
>gathered together together the

Altogether one together too many.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 23:19 GMT
>>>>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life.  
>>>>> In much the same way that, say, Einstein or Darwin or Mozart or
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> importantly, gathered together together the knowledge and skills that
> were imparted to you at college.

Are you seriously suggesting I should feel eternally grateful for the
founder of my college(1) and the authors of my textbooks?

1. I actually know who it was (Jeremy Bentham) mainly because he used to
be on display if you went in by the main entrance.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 17 Jan 2010 00:27 GMT
>>>>>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life.  
>>>>>> In much the same way that, say, Einstein or Darwin or Mozart or
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>1. I actually know who it was (Jeremy Bentham) mainly because he used to
>be on display if you went in by the main entrance.

I saw him there.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Robert Bannister - 18 Jan 2010 01:09 GMT
>>>>>>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life.  
>>>>>>> In much the same way that, say, Einstein or Darwin or Mozart or
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> I saw him there.

Yeah, he didn't get about much except when Kings College were messing about.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 18 Jan 2010 01:27 GMT
>>>>>>>>> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life.  
>>>>>>>> In much the same way that, say, Einstein or Darwin or Mozart or
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
>Yeah, he didn't get about much except when Kings College were messing about.

The rivalry between King's and UCL meant that for I few days I was
custodian of the King's College Students' Union mascot. I had some sort
of official position in the UCL film society. We had a room or two
allocated to to the society in the bowels of the UCL main building. It
was a useful hiding place for a stray lion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_College_London_Students%27_Union#Mascot

"Mayhem in the Metropolis, Kings's College versus University College":
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/iss/archives/rag/rag04.htm

   The College mascots: Phineas and Reggie

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 11:40 GMT
<snip>

>> It was no-longer-around people who created the college and, more
>> importantly, gathered together together the knowledge and skills that
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>1. I actually know who it was (Jeremy Bentham) mainly because he used to
>be on display if you went in by the main entrance.

Thomas Jefferson in my case and, should anyone ask, I am grateful he
founded the University of Virginia, aka, in his day, the Academical
Village.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 17 Jan 2010 12:30 GMT
><snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>founded the University of Virginia, aka, in his day, the Academical
>Village.

I believe that Thomas Jefferson was buried. Jeremy Bentham was not. When
Rob said JB "used to be on display if you went in by the main entrance"
that referred to the actual physical presence JB.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham#Auto-icon

   As requested in his will, Bentham's body was dissected as part of a
   public anatomy lecture. Afterward, the skeleton and head were
   preserved and stored in a wooden cabinet called the "Auto-icon",
   with the skeleton stuffed out with hay and dressed in Bentham's
   clothes. Originally kept by his disciple Thomas Southwood Smith,
   it was acquired by University College London in 1850. It is normally
   kept on public display at the end of the South Cloisters in the main
   building of the college, but for the 100th and 150th anniversaries
   of the college, it was brought to the meeting of the College
   Council, where it was listed as "present but not voting".
   
   The Auto-icon has a wax head, as Bentham's head was badly damaged in
   the preservation process. The real head was displayed in the same
   case for many years, but became the target of repeated student
   pranks, including being stolen on more than one occasion. It is now
   locked away securely

Much more at:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/Faqs/auto_icon.htm

His clothes have been attacked by wooly bears:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/Faqs/auto_not.htm

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Wood Avens - 17 Jan 2010 15:33 GMT
> The Auto-icon has a wax head, as Bentham's head was badly damaged in
>    the preservation process. The real head was displayed in the same
>    case for many years, but became the target of repeated student
>    pranks, including being stolen on more than one occasion. It is now
>    locked away securely

Didn't he hold his skull in a box on his lap, or am I thinking of
someone else?

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 17 Jan 2010 16:01 GMT
>> The Auto-icon has a wax head, as Bentham's head was badly damaged in
>>    the preservation process. The real head was displayed in the same
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Didn't he hold his skull in a box on his lap, or am I thinking of
>someone else?

I have a vague recollection (late 1950s) of his skull being in a box. I
can't exactly recall the location of the box. My first thought is of the
box being the same width and depth as the cabinet and the chair being on
to of it: in effect the box was a base for the display.

This shows what is said to be the original arrangement with the skull
(not in a box) between his feet:
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/graphics/statue_monumts/Bentham_Jeremy.jpg

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Wood Avens - 17 Jan 2010 16:38 GMT
>>> The Auto-icon has a wax head, as Bentham's head was badly damaged in
>>>    the preservation process. The real head was displayed in the same
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>(not in a box) between his feet:
>http://www.schillerinstitute.org/graphics/statue_monumts/Bentham_Jeremy.jpg

Ah, yes, that looks familiar.  I must have been misremembering.  Or
misdismembering.

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 17 Jan 2010 17:15 GMT
>>>> The Auto-icon has a wax head, as Bentham's head was badly damaged in
>>>>    the preservation process. The real head was displayed in the same
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>Ah, yes, that looks familiar.  I must have been misremembering.  Or
>misdismembering.

I certainly didn't see the head. I recall reading an explanatory notice
that said his head was in a box. I have the feeling that the box was
somewhere in or near the cabinet, but I can't recall where. Underneath,
as I theorised above, is one possibility, another would be on top of the
inner cabinet.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:13 GMT
>>>> Besides, what have they done for us lately?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>importantly, gathered together together the knowledge and skills that
>were imparted to you at college.

Let's be honest here. They got paid for it. I don't see that they
are due any more of my gratefullness than the people who built my
car.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Cheryl - 18 Jan 2010 10:50 GMT
>>>>> Besides, what have they done for us lately?
>>>> The deities or the no-longer-around people who put us through college?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> are due any more of my gratefullness than the people who built my
> car.

I have gratitude to a lot of strangers who do their work well, including
the ones who build reliable machinery I use.

It's a very mild form of gratitude, but it exists. It's so easy NOT to
do well what you're paid for.

Signature

Cheryl

sjdevnull@yahoo.com - 15 Jan 2010 23:14 GMT
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:05:56 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com"
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> In other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life.  

Not at all, to followers of such religions.  One example:

Some offshoots of Deism are thoroughly non-interventionist, in the
sense that they do not believe that God interferes or judges for a
future afterlife.  They still believe that he created the universe
according to a plan, that he imbued humanity with the ability to
reason, and that by applying that reason we can slowly hope to discern
his plan--in the process gaining knowledge that makes our lives
happier and more fulfilled.

This religious approach is that whatever we learn about how the
universe works is also knowledge learned about how things _should_
work in some moral sense, as designed by a good and benevolent deity
(and by emulating whatever plan or pattern is discerned we can better
our own lives).  A purely scientific approach views such knowledge as
merely descriptive of how things _do_ work.  So while the creator does
not directly interfere and doesn't control our destiny, he is also not
irrelevant--through the exercise of deity-given reason, can learn his/
her plan and better our lives by living in accordance with that plan
to the best of our ability.
Hatunen - 16 Jan 2010 00:56 GMT
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:05:56 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com"
>>
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>her plan and better our lives by living in accordance with that plan
>to the best of our ability.

Very warm and fuzzy sounding, but so what?

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

sjdevnull@yahoo.com - 16 Jan 2010 16:57 GMT
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:14:50 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com"
>
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> Very warm and fuzzy sounding, but so what?

The "so what" should follow clearly from the line of quotes above:

I think most people would consider such forms of neo-Deism to be
religions.  Hence, I believe the definition of religion above is
absolutely overly restrictive.  Furthermore, I believe the assertion
that people who think the definition is too restrictive are "certainly
in a small minority" is completely wrong.
Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:10 GMT
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:14:50 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com"
>>
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
>I think most people would consider such forms of neo-Deism to be
>religions.

Many people would; many people wouldn't. I wouldn't.

>Hence, I believe the definition of religion above is
>absolutely overly restrictive.

Well, it's no longer above. I don't know who deleted it. Here it
is again, though:

>>>> "Nevertheless, it [religion] is quite simple at bottom. There is
>>>> nothing really secret or complex about it, no matter what its
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>>> or civilized, and they are the only common characters that all of
>>>> them show. Nothing else is essential."

I see "There is nothing really secret or complex about it, no
matter what its professors may allege to the contrary.There is
nothing really secret or complex about it, no matter what its
professors may allege to the contrary"  as simply saying that
religionds may define themselves as more than that, but that
definition is the core.

>Furthermore, I believe the assertion
>that people who think the definition is too restrictive are "certainly
>in a small minority" is completely wrong.

Did I say that?

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

sjdevnull@yahoo.com - 18 Jan 2010 09:22 GMT
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:57:54 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com"
>
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
> Well, it's no longer above. I don't know who deleted it. Here it
> is again, though:

It is still above, quoted as: "5. a. Recognition on the part of man of
some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as
being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general
mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference
to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or
general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and
practical life."

That's the definition that involved me in this thread--you can see my
entire line of reply to it quoted above, and it's the one I reference
in my above post ending with "Hence, I believe the definition of
religion above is absolutely overly restrictive."

If you want to argue some other definition, you're welcome to it, but
I have no horse in that race--my sole objection was to that
definition.

> >>>> "Nevertheless, it [religion] is quite simple at bottom. There is
> >>>> nothing really secret or complex about it, no matter what its
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> >>>> or civilized, and they are the only common characters that all of
> >>>> them show. Nothing else is essential."

This definition is not one I've seen or commented on before, and going
back through the thread it's not one I've quoted or otherwise
referenced in any way. I have no idea why you bring it into this
discussion now--I see that it's a definition you posted in the thread,
but you posted it long after my objection to the aforementioned
definition of Skitt's. It has nothing to do with the ones I've
objected to previously, and I have no idea why you bring it into this
branch of the thread.

[SNIP]
>  >Furthermore, I believe the assertion
>
> >that people who think the definition is too restrictive are "certainly
> >in a small minority" is completely wrong.
>
> Did I say that?

No, nor did I imply that you did AFAIK--the above line of quotes seems
to properly attribute that remark to Skitt, followed by my objection--
it wasn't until after well after that that you inserted yourself into
this branch of the discussion with the (IMO erroneous) statement: "In
other words, a god who is irrelevant to modern life".  As far as I can
see, that's the first time any quote of yours was involved in this
branch of the thread, and it's the main (only?) statement of yours
that I've taken issue with.
Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 17:35 GMT
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:57:54 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com"
>>
[quoted text clipped - 69 lines]
>general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and
>practical life."

That's not the definition I gave.

>That's the definition that involved me in this thread--you can see my
>entire line of reply to it quoted above, and it's the one I reference
>in my above post ending with "Hence, I believe the definition of
>religion above is absolutely overly restrictive."

Since you and I arre talkign about two different things, pleas
ignore my response to you.

>If you want to argue some other definition, you're welcome to it, but
>I have no horse in that race--my sole objection was to that
>definition.

OK. But that was a response to my posting of Mencken's
definition.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Skitt - 18 Jan 2010 19:18 GMT
>> "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" wrote:
>>>> "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" wrote:
>>>>>> "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen
>>>>>>>>>> power as having control of his destiny, and as being
[quoted text clipped - 108 lines]
> branch of the thread, and it's the main (only?) statement of yours
> that I've taken issue with.

To clarify:

My remark was

  Maybe not alone, but certainly in a small minority. Whet [sic] you
  seem to be including in your "religion" is "philosophy" -- a
  horse of another color entirely.

I may have been in a completely confused state, but it is hard to tell
without restoring several preceding messages to my post.  I meant to support
what was defined at 5.a.

My second sentence was meant to address something by someone that had a
broader definition, but it has since been snipped.

So, for me, religions must include a higher power that merits worshiping and
such, and exclude philosophies.  I hope that clarifies what I meant but
failed to convey before.
Signature

Skitt (AmE)
not that it matters

sjdevnull@yahoo.com - 18 Jan 2010 23:51 GMT
> sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 131 lines]
> such, and exclude philosophies.  I hope that clarifies what I meant but
> failed to convey before.

I think we would agree on what we consider to be religions--
materialism or bare spirituality is not, to me, a religion.  However,
I might quibble over what "merits worshiping" means.

My objections upthread are to the definition at 5.a., which I believe
excludes many religions that believe in and worship a higher power
(mainly by dint of limiting the definition to particular kinds of
higher powers, excluding things like noninterventionist deities or
some polytheistic religions that may worship gods on a more expedient
quid pro quo basis rather than only because of some intrinsic
perceived value in such worship).
annily - 16 Jan 2010 03:32 GMT
>>>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as
>>>> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience,
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> and who to worship in a given situation is done more on a quid pro quo
> basis.

But it certainly doesn't include materialism, as Garrett does.

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

annily - 16 Jan 2010 03:37 GMT
>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as
>> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> That is a much more restrictive definition of "religion" than I would
> accept, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

Maybe not, but I would wager that you are in a very small minority.

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

Steve Hayes - 16 Jan 2010 07:26 GMT
>>5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as
>>having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>That is a much more restrictive definition of "religion" than I would
>accept, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

Try this, then:

"Let us make a tentative definition of `religion'. Religion is an attempt by
man to escape from his circumscription by making and maintaining an
association with a presupposed superhuman or transcendent reality. I avoid the
word `God' in the last phrase so that the definition will include not only
theistic religions and animisms but also the yearnings of the Buddhist and the
ethical humanist, and the group loyalty implied in African ancestor worship,
and the pseudo-Christian nationalism that is so strong in the peoples of
Western Europe and their offshoots (e.g. Land of hope and glory)."

Does that fit?

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

annily - 16 Jan 2010 10:14 GMT
>>> 5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as
>>> having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience,
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Does that fit?

Probably not wide enough for Garrett, since I don't see how materialism
would fit into that.

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

Nick - 15 Jan 2010 19:20 GMT
>>>> I cannot see why the fact I have no religion needs a word that you
>>>> define as a religion,
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> nature from them, and I therefore claim that it is rightly called a
> religion.

Except I view materialism as a good working hypothesis.  That's one of
the problems I have with the great atheist/agnostic distinction.  I
don't /know/ any of this.  I can't.  But I can see no way of
distinguishing between the innumerable groups who all claim that their
way is the one true way, so operate as if this is all there is, and only
things that can be in some way perceived can have an effect.  Maybe I'll
be delightfully proved wrong (though I find it hard to see how whether
there is or is not something that is entirely undetectable a fairly
pointless thing to worry about!).

I sometimes find myself arguing like a fundamentalist atheist, because
dealing with extreme certainty tends to push you into a contrary
position, but in fact I cannot tell in any way that there is nothing
more than this.  Quite the opposite in fact - a religion could prove
itself to me, non-religion can't.  Nevertheless, with no evidence to the
contrary, I can't see any sense in picking an arbitrary set of
unprovable beliefs, that are contrary to the other sets, and following
them.

> Most atheists, particularly in the West, are materialists, but it need
> not necessarily be so.[2]  You cannot *prove* materialism; it is not
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> it as an axiom when working in some larger system, such as science,
> where it has proved helpful.)

^ left in as relevant
Signature

Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

Mike Barnes - 13 Jan 2010 15:42 GMT
Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>:

>>Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark.  Of
>>course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>'em.  Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that
>belief.  Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one.

Yes, atheism is a feature of some religions, but that doesn't make it a
"religious belief". That idea is incorrect, and somewhat offensive.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

the Omrud - 13 Jan 2010 16:33 GMT
> Garrett Wollman<wollman@bimajority.org>:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Yes, atheism is a feature of some religions, but that doesn't make it a
> "religious belief". That idea is incorrect, and somewhat offensive.

If which case, perhaps we should declare an unholy war.

Signature

David

Chuck Riggs - 14 Jan 2010 14:09 GMT
>Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>Yes, atheism is a feature of some religions, but that doesn't make it a
>"religious belief". That idea is incorrect, and somewhat offensive.

Since a religion merely concerns itself with a belief in God, but does
not necessarily require that belief, as I read the definition of
"religious" in the COD10, no one should be offended.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Robert Bannister - 14 Jan 2010 01:03 GMT
>> Stop that sentence before the "(" and that's nearer the mark.  Of
>> course people who have no religious beliefs (I call them
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> 'em.  Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that
> belief.  Atheism is a category of religions, not the absence of one.

I totally fail to comprehend these statements. It's like saying not
everyone loves or hates soccer, but everyone has an opinion about it,
which is simply not true. How can not thinking about something that is
completely irrelevant to one's lifestyle be a religion? I agree that
there are probably some atheists for whom it is one, but they're
probably like people who have recently given up smoking.
Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have opinions
about this.
Signature


Rob Bannister

Garrett Wollman - 14 Jan 2010 02:34 GMT
>How can not thinking about something that is completely irrelevant to
>one's lifestyle be a religion?

You beg the question.  You have already defined "religion" as
"something that is completely irrelevant to [your] lifestyle", so
obviously whatever remains, including whatever your actual religious
belief is, must not be "religion" in your idiolect.  I think we are at
an impasse.

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

Robert Bannister - 15 Jan 2010 00:52 GMT
>> How can not thinking about something that is completely irrelevant to
>> one's lifestyle be a religion?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> belief is, must not be "religion" in your idiolect.  I think we are at
> an impasse.

I read this three times, slowly and carefully, and I still don't
understand it, apart from the impasse. It reminds of the lectures on
sociology that I was forced to attend.

Signature

Rob Bannister

annily - 15 Jan 2010 04:15 GMT
>>> How can not thinking about something that is completely irrelevant to
>>> one's lifestyle be a religion?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I read this three times, slowly and carefully, and I still don't
> understand it, apart from the impasse.

Neither do I. Garrett appears to have a meaning for "religion" which
differs from that of most of us here (and all the dictionaries I have
consulted).

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

Hatunen - 15 Jan 2010 21:49 GMT
>>>> How can not thinking about something that is completely irrelevant to
>>>> one's lifestyle be a religion?
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>differs from that of most of us here (and all the dictionaries I have
>consulted).

I've always favored mencken's definition of religion:

"Nevertheless, it [religion] is quite simple at bottom. There is
nothing really secret or complex about it, no matter what its
professors may allege to the contrary. Whether it happens to show
itself in the artless mumbo-jumbo of a Winnebago Indian or in the
elaborately refined and metaphysical rites of a a Christian
archbishop, its single function is to give man access to the
powers which seem to control his destiny, and its single purpose
is to induce those powers to be friendly to him. That function
and that purpose are common to all relgions, ancient or modern,
savage or civilized, and they are the only common characters that
all of them show. Nothing else is essential."

It usually elicits a lot of vague handwaving about how it's more
than that.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Evan Kirshenbaum - 15 Jan 2010 22:58 GMT
> I've always favored mencken's definition of religion:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> It usually elicits a lot of vague handwaving about how it's more
> than that.

Actually, I'd say rather that it's too specific and shows a decided
Christian bias.  The essence of modern Judaism, as I understand it, is
that those powers have laid down a series of obligations on a group of
people and when those obligations are not met by enough of them for
long enough and in an exreme enough manner, the powers get royally
pissed off and bad things happen to the world in general and that
group in particular, but while the obligations are reasonably met, the
powers look favorably on that group or at least will in the long run.
There's not a lot of angling for personal favors.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The mystery of government is not how
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |Washington works, but how to make it
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |stop.
                                      |                  P.J. O'Rourke
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Hatunen - 16 Jan 2010 00:53 GMT
>> I've always favored mencken's definition of religion:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>powers look favorably on that group or at least will in the long run.
>There's not a lot of angling for personal favors.

It's still a matter of keeping god friendly to them. The
definition says nothing about personal favors.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 01:08 GMT
>>> I've always favored mencken's definition of religion:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> It's still a matter of keeping god friendly to them. The
> definition says nothing about personal favors.

It says "friendly to *him*".  I took that as "personal".

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |You gotta know when to code,
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |  Know when to log out,
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |Know when to single step,
                                      |  Know when you're through.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |You don't write your program
   (650)857-7572                      |  When you're sittin' at the term'nal.
                                      |There'll be time enough for writin'
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/        |  When you're in the queue.

Hatunen - 16 Jan 2010 01:19 GMT
>>>> I've always favored mencken's definition of religion:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
>It says "friendly to *him*".  I took that as "personal".

it says, "... its single function is to give man access  ..."

If it said "... its single function is to give a man access ..."
I might agree.

"That's one small step for a man ...."

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 02:28 GMT
>>>>> I've always favored mencken's definition of religion:
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> If it said "... its single function is to give a man access ..."
> I might agree.

I think that's how I read it.  I don't think I can match "man" with
"his" without thinking "a generic man" and "specifically the one in
question".  Is there evidence that Mencken would have meant "making
things better for people in general"?  It doesn't sound anywhere near
cynical enough for him.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |"Are you okay?"
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |"I'm made of felt....Add by dose
                                      |cubs off."
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Hatunen - 17 Jan 2010 23:52 GMT
>>>>>> I've always favored mencken's definition of religion:
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>things better for people in general"?  It doesn't sound anywhere near
>cynical enough for him.

That is cynical, and part of a rather cyncial definition of
"religion".

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Peter Moylan - 14 Jan 2010 05:37 GMT
>> And that is a religious belief equal in stature to all the rest of
>> 'em.  Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> which is simply not true. How can not thinking about something that is
> completely irrelevant to one's lifestyle be a religion?

It depends on the prevailing culture. When I lived in Melbourne it was
socially unacceptable to have no opinion about football. In the end I
had to join the anti-football league for the sake of having a "team"
that was no team.

I now live in a city where it is not compulsory to have opinions about
football or religion. Not everyone is so privileged. In places where a
large proportion of the population has a religion, people with no
interest in religion discover that society automatically labels them as
members of the atheist "religion".

When you're surrounded by stamp collectors, you will discover yourself
branded as someone who specialises in stampless stamp collections.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

R H Draney - 14 Jan 2010 06:12 GMT
Peter Moylan filted:

>> I totally fail to comprehend these statements. It's like saying not
>> everyone loves or hates soccer, but everyone has an opinion about it,
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>When you're surrounded by stamp collectors, you will discover yourself
>branded as someone who specialises in stampless stamp collections.

And if you don't drink because you've never developed a taste for liquor, you're
automatically assumed to be either a temperance reformer or a recovering
alcoholic....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Nick Spalding - 14 Jan 2010 11:27 GMT
R H Draney wrote, in <himcjn01608@drn.newsguy.com>
on 13 Jan 2010 22:12:07 -0800:

> Peter Moylan filted:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> automatically assumed to be either a temperance reformer or a recovering
> alcoholic....r

In Ireland nobody ever refuses a drink for fear of being thought an
alcoholic.
Signature

Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

Chuck Riggs - 14 Jan 2010 14:34 GMT
>>> And that is a religious belief equal in stature to all the rest of
>>> 'em.  Indeed, there is more than one religion which holds to that
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>When you're surrounded by stamp collectors, you will discover yourself
>branded as someone who specialises in stampless stamp collections.

You will agree, I think, that a person must decide what is most
important. I was a drinker and an atheist when surrounded by baseball
fans and Protestants and now I'm a teetotaler and an atheist, while
surrounded by drinkers and Catholics. I've been consistent in my
disbelief because it deserves consistency more than most things do,
IMO.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Hatunen - 14 Jan 2010 18:45 GMT
>Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have opinions
>about this.

A chance for me to slip in a caveat here. I smoked from about age
16 to age 51, when I finally quit for good. That was 21 years
ago, and I suffer from emphysema.

Don't think that if you smoke to some age you consider reasonable
and then quite you are going to escape the damages of smoking.

Quit now!

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Skitt - 14 Jan 2010 18:57 GMT
>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have
>> opinions about this.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Quit now!

I smoked from the age of about 21 to age 58 (19 years ago).  So far, so
good.  When did your emphysema make itself noticed?
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Hatunen - 14 Jan 2010 19:17 GMT
>>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have
>>> opinions about this.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>I smoked from the age of about 21 to age 58 (19 years ago).  So far, so
>good.  When did your emphysema make itself noticed?

Pretty much in the aftermath of my quintuple cardiac artery
bypass operation.

My stepfather was quit for some twenty years but died of lung
cancer. At least I'm still good on that one.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Evan Kirshenbaum - 14 Jan 2010 19:28 GMT
>>>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have
>>>> opinions about this.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Pretty much in the aftermath of my quintuple cardiac artery
> bypass operation.

That's not very subtle.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |If a bus station is where a bus
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |stops, and a train station is where
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |a train stops, what does that say
                                      |about a workstation?
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Robert Bannister - 15 Jan 2010 00:57 GMT
>>>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have
>>>> opinions about this.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> My stepfather was quit for some twenty years but died of lung
> cancer. At least I'm still good on that one.

Of the four people I knew who died of lung cancer, three had never
smoked in their lives and nor did their spouses.

Signature

Rob Bannister

LFS - 14 Jan 2010 19:00 GMT
>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have opinions
>> about this.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Quit now!

When my grandfather died in his eighties, we were told that he died of a
smoking related disease. He had never smoked in my lifetime and my
mother thought that he had stopped sometime in his early fifties.

I stopped smoking thirty years ago when diagnosed with a stomach ulcer.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Cheryl - 14 Jan 2010 19:38 GMT
>>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have
>>> opinions about this.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> I stopped smoking thirty years ago when diagnosed with a stomach ulcer.

Not everyone who dies of a smoking-related disease got the disease
because they smoked. Some people who die of lung cancer, like one of my
grandmothers, never smoked or had one of the other common risk factors
in her life.

Signature

Cheryl

Hatunen - 14 Jan 2010 20:21 GMT
>>>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have
>>>> opinions about this.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>grandmothers, never smoked or had one of the other common risk factors
>in her life.

Quite true. According to that paragon of reference. Wikipeida:

"Smoking, particularly of cigarettes, is by far the main
contributor to lung cancer.[32] Across the developed world,
almost 90% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking.[33] In
the United States, smoking is estimated to account for 87% of
lung cancer cases (90% in men and 85% in women).[34] Among male
smokers, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is 17.2%;
among female smokers, the risk is 11.6%. This risk is
significantly lower in nonsmokers: 1.3% in men and 1.4% in women"

And...

"The most common cause of lung cancer is long-term exposure to
tobacco smoke. The occurrence of lung cancer in nonsmokers, who
account for as many as 15% of cases, is often attributed to a
combination of genetic factors, radon gas, asbestos, and air
pollution, including secondhand smoke"

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

the Omrud - 14 Jan 2010 22:38 GMT
>>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have
>>> opinions about this.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> I stopped smoking thirty years ago when diagnosed with a stomach ulcer.

Gosh, I never would have guessed.  I move in circles where we were a
non-smoking generation.

Signature

David
in a Hilton

LFS - 15 Jan 2010 09:29 GMT
>>>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have
>>>> opinions about this.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Gosh, I never would have guessed.  

You never would have guessed that I'd stopped? Well, people have claimed
to see smoke coming out of my ears when I'm very cross....

I move in circles where we were a
> non-smoking generation.

Son tried it at about fifteen when he also tried alcohol and cannabis.
None of these appealed. I don't know anyone in our children's generation
who smokes. I have two colleagues at work in the 50-65 age range who
smoke but none of our friends do, although several used to. But many of
our students, in their twenties, smoke.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

sjdevnull@yahoo.com - 15 Jan 2010 19:47 GMT
> >>>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have
> >>>> opinions about this.
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> smoke but none of our friends do, although several used to. But many of
> our students, in their twenties, smoke.

Some statistics, garnered from http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/index.htm

* "In Great Britain, the highest rates of smoking are in the 20-24 age-
group, with 31% of people this age recorded as smokers. The prevalence
of smoking then declines with age to 12% of people aged 60 and over
smoking"

* In Britain in 1948, when surveys of smoking began, smoking was
extremely prevalent among men: 82% smoked some form of tobacco and 65%
were cigarette smokers. By 1970, the percentage of cigarette smokers
had fallen to 55%. From the 1970s onwards, smoking prevalence fell
rapidly until the mid-1990s. Since then the rate has continued to fall
slowly and in 2007 around a fifth (22%) of men (aged 16 and over) were
reported as smokers

* Smoking has never been a majority habit among women and the
percentage of female smokers remained remarkably constant between 1948
and 1970 (41% in 1948 and 44% in 1970). Between 1972 and 2007 the
percentage of women who smoke decreased to 20%
Default User - 15 Jan 2010 21:39 GMT
> Son tried it at about fifteen when he also tried alcohol and
> cannabis. None of these appealed. I don't know anyone in our
> children's generation who smokes. I have two colleagues at work in
> the 50-65 age range who smoke but none of our friends do, although
> several used to. But many of our students, in their twenties, smoke.

There was a recent Wall Street Journal article about smoking, which
unfortunately I can't find online. An interesting bit in there was that
the number of smokers in the US has been pretty steady since the 1960s,
although the population increased. In spite of my own concerns, it
doesn't really seem like there's a rise in the number of smokers. The
article also mentioned that many more of the smokers these days are
part-time, due to the restictions at workplaces and such.

When I was lad starting out at the cumpnee, people could smoke at their
desks, and there was none of this cubicle nonsense in those days. We
were in bullpens, in close proximity to our coworkers. I'd been away
from my parents house, where there had been two heavy smokers, long
enough that the second-hand smoke was fairly irritating.

Brian

Signature

Day 347 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

Hatunen - 15 Jan 2010 22:07 GMT
>> Son tried it at about fifteen when he also tried alcohol and
>> cannabis. None of these appealed. I don't know anyone in our
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>from my parents house, where there had been two heavy smokers, long
>enough that the second-hand smoke was fairly irritating.

Ditto, and we even had a cigarette vending machine across the
hall.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Skitt - 15 Jan 2010 23:40 GMT
>>> Son tried it at about fifteen when he also tried alcohol and
>>> cannabis. None of these appealed. I don't know anyone in our
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Ditto, and we even had a cigarette vending machine across the
> hall.

Right, but smoking was not allowed around the missiles I worked on.  That
was not for safety reasons, as the missiles did not have live motors, but
they didn't want us to get ashes into the exposed innards of the works.
Using a lit cigarette is the quickest way to test radiometers, though.  For
efficiency's sake, when it was time to test them, I lit a cigarette and took
over from the techs, thus speeding things up.  I was a systems test engineer
then.
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Robert Bannister - 15 Jan 2010 00:56 GMT
>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have opinions
>> about this.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Quit now!

My father died of emphysema after giving up smoking. Cause and effect?
Doctoral thesis?

Signature

Rob Bannister

LFS - 15 Jan 2010 09:22 GMT
>>> Note: I have now gone three months without smoking. I do have
>>> opinions about this.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> My father died of emphysema after giving up smoking. Cause and effect?
> Doctoral thesis?

And my aunt, who had smoked at least 40 a day since the age of 40, died
at 94, having suffered no appreciable ill effects from the habit.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

R H Draney - 15 Jan 2010 17:27 GMT
LFS filted:

>> My father died of emphysema after giving up smoking. Cause and effect?
>> Doctoral thesis?
>
>And my aunt, who had smoked at least 40 a day since the age of 40, died
>at 94, having suffered no appreciable ill effects from the habit.

Recently the newspapers reported the death of Tsutomu Yamaguchi, survivor of
both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes, of stomach cancer at the age of 93...just
think how long he would have lived if he hadn't been a victim of both
blasts!...r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 01:07 GMT
> LFS filted:
>>> My father died of emphysema after giving up smoking. Cause and effect?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> think how long he would have lived if he hadn't been a victim of both
> blasts!...r

I remember reading the report and I was only surprised that someone
didn't try to blame his death on passive smoking.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Steve Hayes - 13 Jan 2010 04:31 GMT
>>>I was discussing the meaning of "I believe" in the context of religion
>>>and faith and whether an person can say he has no "beliefs".
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>that there is or was a God so its existence or not, and all that stems
>from it, is irrelevant.

I take your point about views and thoughts. But I was referring to what I had
said earlier, that "I believe", "I think" and "In my view" are near synonyms.

>That does not mean that unbelievers have no philosophy of life.  Like
>David's, my parents brought me up to behave fairly properly according
>to most Western people's view of "proper", to believe in law and
>order, and respect others.  One does not have the need of God, Hell
>and damnation to behave responsibly.

Well yes, that's what I was saying, only about "believe" and "beliefs" rather
than "believe in". But since you yourself have added the "believe in" by
saying that your parents brought you up to believe in law and order, it makes
the point even more strongly -- that even "believe in" is not necessarily a
religious statement.

>As to life itself: the existence of life is a result of chemistry
>given the right conditions.  Whether it is an accident, and therefore
>rare, or pretty much a forgone conclusion in the right circumstances,
>we do not yet know, because we do not know those "right" conditions
>and even if we did we probably cannot yet duplicate them on earth.

And that is therefore what you believe, or think, or what in your view is the
case.

>* I distinguish between unbelievers and those atheists who spend a lot
>of their time trying to prove that God does not exist.  In my view
>these latter spend as much time thinking about religion as do
>religious fundamentalists.

Quite possibly.

I call them all atheists, and if I want to distinguish them I call the latter
militant atheists.

In my view an atheist is simply someone without God or gods.

"Unbeliever" doesn't work for me, because it may mean (as you say it does to
you) someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. But to me it may also mean
someone who doesn't believe in law and order, or climate change, or any number
of other things. So for me, "unbeliever" is not enough. You need to specify
what it is you don't believe in.

In my view, saying that you have no religious beliefs is meaningful. Saying
you have no beliefs is not.

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Garrett Wollman - 13 Jan 2010 06:26 GMT
>"Unbeliever" doesn't work for me, because it may mean (as you say it does to
>you) someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. But to me it may also mean
>someone who doesn't believe in law and order, or climate change, or any number
>of other things. So for me, "unbeliever" is not enough. You need to specify
>what it is you don't believe in.

I agree in the general case, but "unbeliever" for me has a default
frame of reference to the dominant, official, or culturally-expected
religion -- it's closer to "infidel" than to "unaligned".

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

Chuck Riggs - 13 Jan 2010 14:57 GMT
>>"Unbeliever" doesn't work for me, because it may mean (as you say it does to
>>you) someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. But to me it may also mean
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>frame of reference to the dominant, official, or culturally-expected
>religion -- it's closer to "infidel" than to "unaligned".

As for me, I'm a happy infidel. "Unaligned" makes me sound like an
automobile front end or, perhaps, the IF strip of a poorly tuned
superheterodyne radio.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Robin Bignall - 13 Jan 2010 21:47 GMT
>"Unbeliever" doesn't work for me, because it may mean (as you say it does to
>you) someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. But to me it may also mean
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>In my view, saying that you have no religious beliefs is meaningful. Saying
>you have no beliefs is not.

Well, I did specifically start one of my other posts by stating that
when we're discussing "belief" in this sort of fashion we're actually
referring to religious belief. It never fails to surprise me that a
large number of people assume that a person who does not believe in
deities therefore must believe in nothing.

As to your militant or argumentative atheists, to my mind they're
practising a religion called "God denial", some of them as strongly as
the most militant and fundamentalist deists practise religion.  I've
never seen any point in that.

I think that the Omrud and I (and probably many others) have
difficulty in explaining to those who have some sort of religious
faith (including agnostics) that our brand of atheism is not some sort
of religion; it's a total absence of religious faith, either as some
sort of meaning for life or some explanation of why the universe is
how it is.  
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Steve Hayes - 14 Jan 2010 04:11 GMT
>>"Unbeliever" doesn't work for me, because it may mean (as you say it does to
>>you) someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. But to me it may also mean
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>sort of meaning for life or some explanation of why the universe is
>how it is.  

Well I have no difficulty in understanding your position, which I would
describe as generic or basic atheism, as distinguished from what I call
militant atheism, which we've already discussed.

I'm not sure what the problem is.

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Chuck Riggs - 14 Jan 2010 14:44 GMT
>>"Unbeliever" doesn't work for me, because it may mean (as you say it does to
>>you) someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. But to me it may also mean
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>sort of meaning for life or some explanation of why the universe is
>how it is.  

How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a belief
in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an atheist.
Is it hypocritical for an atheist to try to live by the teachings of
Christ?
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Cheryl - 14 Jan 2010 15:07 GMT
> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a belief
> in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an atheist.
> Is it hypocritical for an atheist to try to live by the teachings of
> Christ?

There's nothing particularly hypocritical about it, as long as the
atheist sticks to claiming that he/she are following the moral teachings
a good Christian should and isn't claiming that he/she is following the
injunctions about prayer and obedience to God while privately convinced
that there is no God.

There is the difficulty of combining the views that Jesus' moral
teachings are just fine but his claim to be the Messiah are delusional.
Some people manage to do so by pointing out that there are only a few
such claims directly attributed to Christ himself, and all of those were
written down after his death and might be inaccurate.

Signature

Cheryl

Robin Bignall - 14 Jan 2010 21:40 GMT
>>>"Unbeliever" doesn't work for me, because it may mean (as you say it does to
>>>you) someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. But to me it may also mean
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>Is it hypocritical for an atheist to try to live by the teachings of
>Christ?

I think a lot of the Catholics and Protestants in the country in which
you live would assert that they are good Christians.  Unfortunately
they seem to have a penchant for killing each other.  If they actually
practised what they preached there would be a great deal less
hypocrisy in the world.

You claim in previous posts to be an atheist.  Does that mean that you
do not follow the general principles of the Ten Commandments and
other, similar suggestions for living in a society?  Regardless of who
is supposed to have originally suggested such ideas, it seems sensible
to me not to go around killing people, stealing their possessions and
so on, not just because we have police and punishments, but because I
don't want my life or possessions to be taken.  It seems to be common
sense to me.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Peter Moylan - 14 Jan 2010 22:34 GMT
> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a belief
> in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an atheist.
> Is it hypocritical for an atheist to try to live by the teachings of
> Christ?

Not at all.  His teachings weren't original with him.  He picked up
ideas that were already considered to be good rules for living.

I'm inclined to believe that principles like "treat other people fairly"
are the result of natural selection. Societies where kindness and
altruism flourish have good survival prospects. Societies where everyone
was at everyone else's throat probably killed themselves off, with
consequent pruning of the genetic factors that made people act nastily.

Our modern societies do, of course, contain some people who place more
emphasis on their own benefit than on fitting in smoothly with their
fellows, but by and large the sociopaths are in a minority. The precepts
of the popular religions reflect what people have already discovered to
be ways to live in harmony.

If you, as an atheist, picked up the Christian idea of frequently
praying to the god of your choice, /that/ would be hypocritical. That
issue hardly arises, though, because it's easy to distinguish the ritual
rules of a religion from its "ethical behaviour" rules.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Chuck Riggs - 15 Jan 2010 12:16 GMT
>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a belief
>> in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an atheist.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Not at all.  His teachings weren't original with him.  He picked up
>ideas that were already considered to be good rules for living.

Confucianism and Taoism are interesting, but my favourite of the
religions that preceded Christianity, Buddhism, is far more attractive
to me than the gospels of the Bible. Although I still find some of the
stories in the Old Testament interesting, there are many sections of
it that I can't take seriously.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Cheryl - 15 Jan 2010 12:42 GMT
>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a belief
>>> in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an atheist.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> stories in the Old Testament interesting, there are many sections of
> it that I can't take seriously.

I could never get interested enough in any of the Eastern religions even
to develop an informed opinion, although some of them, Buddhism in
particular, were very popular when I was younger. Or westernized
versions of them, anyway. These days, a lot of people seem to go for
vaguely eastern, vaguely new-ageish ideas. And atheism and agnosticism,
of course.

Signature

Cheryl

Skitt - 15 Jan 2010 18:46 GMT
>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a
>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> vaguely eastern, vaguely new-ageish ideas. And atheism and
> agnosticism, of course.

It seems that most people need something besides themselves to believe in.
I don't seem to ever have had that need.  I don't believe in concepts such
as atheism or agnosticism, as you called those.  I merely believe that there
is no such thing as a god, and I have a low opinion of any sort of
fundamentalists of any sort of religion.  Oh, well ...
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Cheryl - 15 Jan 2010 19:21 GMT
>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a
>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> believe that there is no such thing as a god, and I have a low opinion
> of any sort of fundamentalists of any sort of religion.  Oh, well ...

I tend to think of such things more as organized approaches to
developing answers to 'why' questions - not just 'why are we here?' but
'why should I do X instead of Y in situation Z?' They function on a lot
of other levels, too - perhaps believing in something besides
themselves, belonging etc.

Signature

Cheryl

Skitt - 15 Jan 2010 19:36 GMT
>>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a
>>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> a lot of other levels, too - perhaps believing in something besides
> themselves, belonging etc.

I have never felt a need for "belonging" for the sake of belonging.  OK, I
tend to be a loner, and that is by choice.  Somehow, I have never found
groups that pique my curiosity, this newsgroup excepted, of course, or I
wouldn't be writing this.
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Chuck Riggs - 16 Jan 2010 12:17 GMT
>>>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a
>>>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>groups that pique my curiosity, this newsgroup excepted, of course, or I
>wouldn't be writing this.

Did belonging to the family of people at Boeing or Lockheed, I forget
which, not give you pleasure? I'm a loner, but the Army family I
belonged to as a dependent and the million-strong Navy family I
belonged to as a worker gave me a great deal of pleasure.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Skitt - 16 Jan 2010 19:05 GMT
>> I have never felt a need for "belonging" for the sake of belonging.
>> OK, I tend to be a loner, and that is by choice.  Somehow, I have
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> belonged to as a dependent and the million-strong Navy family I
> belonged to as a worker gave me a great deal of pleasure.

Yes, I derived some pleasure associating with a few of my workmates while at
work.  Having frequent chats with them alleviated the stress of the
concentration required for my programming and program design work.  When I
was concentrating on the tasks at hand, I was oblivious to my surroundings.

I did not associate with my workmates outside the work or lunchtime
environments.
Signature

Skitt (in SF Bay Area)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/main.html

Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 11:59 GMT
>>> I have never felt a need for "belonging" for the sake of belonging.
>>> OK, I tend to be a loner, and that is by choice.  Somehow, I have
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>I did not associate with my workmates outside the work or lunchtime
>environments.

Except for my canoeing partner, I didn't either, but I felt reasonably
close to a number of the people who worked in my immediate office, in
the Navy laboratories and in a few other Navy facilities. I enjoyed
the company of some of our contractors, too, even if we weren't close.
By law we weren't close.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Hatunen - 15 Jan 2010 21:40 GMT
>>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a
>>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>of other levels, too - perhaps believing in something besides
>themselves, belonging etc.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen - 15 Jan 2010 21:44 GMT
>> It seems that most people need something besides themselves to believe
>> in. I don't seem to ever have had that need.  I don't believe in
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>of other levels, too - perhaps believing in something besides
>themselves, belonging etc.

Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any
commandments, to wit:

1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual
growth in our congregations;

4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process
within our congregations and in society at large;

6.The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice
for all;

7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which
we are a part.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 01:12 GMT
>>> It seems that most people need something besides themselves to believe
>>> in. I don't seem to ever have had that need.  I don't believe in
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> 7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which
> we are a part.

I could certainly live with that, although I find No. 4 odd - this
continual search for "meaning" (whatever that is) seems to be one of the
things that sets "religious" people apart. I think I understand No. 7,
but the wording is a bit airy-fairy.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Hatunen - 16 Jan 2010 01:17 GMT
>>>> It seems that most people need something besides themselves to believe
>>>> in. I don't seem to ever have had that need.  I don't believe in
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>things that sets "religious" people apart. I think I understand No. 7,
>but the wording is a bit airy-fairy.

UUs are kind of inclined that way....

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Cheryl - 16 Jan 2010 13:05 GMT
>>>> It seems that most people need something besides themselves to
>>>> believe in. I don't seem to ever have had that need.  I don't
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> things that sets "religious" people apart. I think I understand No. 7,
> but the wording is a bit airy-fairy.

The list certainly would give me a lot to quibble about, which has some
attraction. No. 7 is clearly referring to environmentalism, and although
I think I could adhere to it as written, I'd be accused of not doing so
because there are certain forms of environmentalism that practically
give me hives, and the supporters of such views wouldn't consider me an
enivronmentalist at all. After all, I eat meat even though cows
contribute to global warming and are sentient creatures.

Signature

Cheryl

John Holmes - 21 Jan 2010 10:09 GMT
> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any
> commandments, to wit:

Ooo, look, there are conservation laws at work in the universe. I was
reading earlier today about a school that had a Principle and a
Vice-Principle. If I can find five more, it will all balance out.

Signature

Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

Peter Moylan - 21 Jan 2010 12:41 GMT
>> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any
>> commandments, to wit:
>
> Ooo, look, there are conservation laws at work in the universe. I was
> reading earlier today about a school that had a Principle and a
> Vice-Principle. If I can find five more, it will all balance out.

Not quite. Vice-Principle is a term that seems to cancel itself out.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Cheryl - 21 Jan 2010 12:49 GMT
>>> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any
>>> commandments, to wit:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
> Not quite. Vice-Principle is a term that seems to cancel itself out.

Well, there's always the solution proposed by Mr. Jed Clampett - add a
line to the V and you have 'Nice' Principle.

Signature

Cheryl

R H Draney - 21 Jan 2010 17:32 GMT
Cheryl filted:

>>>> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any
>>>> commandments, to wit:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Well, there's always the solution proposed by Mr. Jed Clampett - add a
>line to the V and you have 'Nice' Principle.

Billy Connolly as the new schoolteacher flirting with the administrator he's
just been introduced to: "Vice Principal, eh?  How'd you like to be one of my
principal vices?"...r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Pat Durkin - 21 Jan 2010 16:45 GMT
>> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any
>> commandments, to wit:
>
> Ooo, look, there are conservation laws at work in the universe. I
> was reading earlier today about a school that had a Principle and a
> Vice-Principle. If I can find five more, it will all balance out.

Oh, you meant to write "conversation laws" right?
Hatunen - 21 Jan 2010 21:35 GMT
>> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any
>> commandments, to wit:
>
>Ooo, look, there are conservation laws at work in the universe. I was
>reading earlier today about a school that had a Principle and a
>Vice-Principle. If I can find five more, it will all balance out.

In American the word is "principal", but you knew that didn't
you?

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Skitt - 21 Jan 2010 21:59 GMT
> "John Holmes" wrote:

>>> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any
>>> commandments, to wit:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> In American the word is "principal", but you knew that didn't
> you?

I think somebody is getting whooshed.
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Robert Bannister - 22 Jan 2010 00:32 GMT
>>> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any
>>> commandments, to wit:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> In American the word is "principal", but you knew that didn't
> you?

I thought that referred to the capitol sum, but perhaps that's been
superceded.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Hatunen - 23 Jan 2010 22:12 GMT
>>>> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any
>>>> commandments, to wit:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>I thought that referred to the capitol sum, but perhaps that's been
>superceded.

In the capitol, sums are always being superceded...

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

R H Draney - 23 Jan 2010 23:52 GMT
Robert Bannister filted:

>>>> Unitarian-Universalism follows seven principals rather than any
>>>> commandments, to wit:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>I thought that referred to the capitol sum, but perhaps that's been
>superceded.

You make spellchecker cry!...r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Chuck Riggs - 16 Jan 2010 12:10 GMT
>>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a
>>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>of other levels, too - perhaps believing in something besides
>themselves, belonging etc.

By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X
has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am
probably using religious principles, both Christian and Buddhist, but
my behaviour is not dependent on the existence of a god.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Wood Avens - 16 Jan 2010 12:22 GMT
>By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X
>has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am
>probably using religious principles, both Christian and Buddhist, but
>my behaviour is not dependent on the existence of a god.

They're not "religious" principles, they're just principles.
Religions aren't entitled to claim ownership of the practical
gudelines for communal living just because they choose to incorporate
them into their doctrines.

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

Skitt - 16 Jan 2010 19:06 GMT

>> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X
>> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> gudelines for communal living just because they choose to incorporate
> them into their doctrines.

Right.
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 23:27 GMT
>> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X
>> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> gudelines for communal living just because they choose to incorporate
> them into their doctrines.

Exactly. If you listen to some of the more extreme religious types, you
get the impression that but for their brand of religion, we'd all go
round murdering each other willy-nilly.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 12:05 GMT
>>By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X
>>has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>gudelines for communal living just because they choose to incorporate
>them into their doctrines.

Since many of the principles Westerners hold, including atheists like
myself, are based on the teachings of the Bible, they are correctly
called "religious principles", IMO.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Robert Bannister - 18 Jan 2010 01:18 GMT
>>> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X
>>> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> myself, are based on the teachings of the Bible, they are correctly
> called "religious principles", IMO.

They are not based on the teachings of the Bible, which, despite the
Commandments, is mainly about eye for an eye, revenge or plain conquest.
Rather the Bible, like most religious texts, selects a few of the items
common to nearly all human societies. Don't kill, don't steal are the
main ones; the rest, which don't even seem to be strictly adhered to
even by all Christians or Jews, vary according to geography and
historical period.

Note: the Bible says nothing about having sex with children, and the
Commandments don't mention incest.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Peter Moylan - 18 Jan 2010 06:03 GMT
>> Since many of the principles Westerners hold, including atheists like
>> myself, are based on the teachings of the Bible, they are correctly
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Note: the Bible says nothing about having sex with children, and the
> Commandments don't mention incest.

Not the commandments, no, but I got the impression that Lot's incestuous
behaviour didn't stop him from being considered to be a virtuous man.
The Lot story also carries the message that raping children is a
desirable alternative to homosexual rape.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Cheryl - 18 Jan 2010 10:48 GMT
>>>> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X
>>>> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> Note: the Bible says nothing about having sex with children, and the
> Commandments don't mention incest.

If you're talking about principles 'based on the Bible' instead of
'found in a literal reading of the Bible', you can hardly avoid the
interpretations of the Bible (and Torah) teachings about what those
principles are and how they should be applied by thousands of years of
Jewish and Christian scholars. That includes just about everything
modern Western thinking is based on, if you trace the antecedents back
far enough. Now, I wouldn't therefore call the principles themselves
"religious principles" since they are used by non-religious people as
well, but they were certainly founded in and developed in religions and
their theology.

That the people who developed and taught these principles often failed
to live them means that the people were and are human and fallible. It
doesn't mean they didn't hold the principles.

And at the risk of starting another long OT thread, both sex with
children and incest have different meanings at different times and in
different places. We - at least in Canada - include both sex with
pre-pubescent children and sex with children from pubescence to legal
age of majority as "sex with children". There's a wide difference
between the first and the second cases, and some societies have
recognized it - even our own does in the various exceptions it makes for
 adolescents, defining some sex involving adolescents as 'OK, sort of'
and some as 'sex with children', usually depending on the age of the
partner. And the idea that sex between first cousins is incestuous is so
recent I can remember it - whatever the law says about it being OK. So -
saying that the Bible doesn't say anything about those two issues
ignores the varying definitions as well as the centuries of
interpretation and application of Biblical teachings.

Signature

Cheryl

Chuck Riggs - 18 Jan 2010 11:34 GMT
>>>> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X
>>>> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>They are not based on the teachings of the Bible, which, despite the
>Commandments, is mainly about eye for an eye, revenge or plain conquest.

Try again. To set the record straight, here are the Big Ten:

http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/the-ten-commandments.html
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 17:43 GMT
>>>>> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X
>>>>> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/the-ten-commandments.html

I'm not sure what you're getting at; he said "... despite the
Commandments ..."

(I see that God admits he is not the only god, just the only god
for the Hebrews.)

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Robert Bannister - 19 Jan 2010 01:31 GMT
>>>>> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X
>>>>> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/the-ten-commandments.html

As I said: "despite the commandments". I have read the book, you know.
The film was nothing like it.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Chuck Riggs - 19 Jan 2010 11:55 GMT
>>>>>> By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X
>>>>>> has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>As I said: "despite the commandments". I have read the book, you know.
>The film was nothing like it.

How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we should
follow without including the Ten Commandments?
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Evan Kirshenbaum - 19 Jan 2010 17:22 GMT
> How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we
> should follow without including the Ten Commandments?

Just make sure that you get the right ten (Ex 20:2-17, Deut. 5:6-18),
not the other, probably earlier, set in (Ex: 34:14-26).

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |"You can't prove it *isn't* so!" is
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |as good as Q.E.D. in folk logic--as
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |though it were necessary to submit
                                      |a piece of the moon to chemical
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |analysis before you could be sure
   (650)857-7572                      |that it was not made of green
                                      |cheese.
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/        |           Bergen Evans

Skitt - 19 Jan 2010 18:21 GMT
>> How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we
>> should follow without including the Ten Commandments?
>
> Just make sure that you get the right ten (Ex 20:2-17, Deut. 5:6-18),
> not the other, probably earlier, set in (Ex: 34:14-26).

They had Service Packs already then?
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

James Hogg - 19 Jan 2010 19:16 GMT
>>> How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we
>>> should follow without including the Ten Commandments?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> They had Service Packs already then?

They had to have different sets of commandments, one for children and
one for adults.

The version that isn't so well known starts with this commandment:

"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is
Jealous, is a jealous God:
Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go
a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one
call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a
whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

They produced the other version when they got tired of children asking:
"Daddy, what is whoring?"

Signature

James

CDB - 20 Jan 2010 15:14 GMT
>>>> How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we
>>>> should follow without including the Ten Commandments?
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> They produced the other version when they got tired of children
> asking: "Daddy, what is whoring?"

I'd be interested to hear the Dad explain that one, myself.  My
dictionary translates the word in question as "sacrificing".
Evan Kirshenbaum - 20 Jan 2010 16:25 GMT
>>>>> How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we
>>>>> should follow without including the Ten Commandments?
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> I'd be interested to hear the Dad explain that one, myself.  My
> dictionary translates the word in question as "sacrificing".

Both words are there in 34:15.  NJPS says "lust after their gods".
Friedman gives it as "prostitute themselves after their gods".

The words in question are /zanu/ (the first two times) and /hiznu/
(the last).  The -/u/ is a grammatical ending, "they will".  My trusty
on-line Hebrew dictionary (which takes unpointed inflected forms),
gives, for the first

  /zan/  to nurture, to feed
  /zina/ to be promiscuous, to fornicate, to commit adultery.

while for the second

  /hazin/ to enter data, to sustain, to supply, to feed
  /hizna/ to cause someone to engage in prostitution

The following words /axarei elohehEn/, "after their gods" appear to
force one reading, although I wish that my Hebrew was better, since I
would have expected the first to be pointed as /zinu/ rather than
/zanu/ if that were the case.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |It is one thing to be mistaken; it is
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |quite another to be willfully
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |ignorant
                                      |                   Cecil Adams
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Jerry Friedman - 20 Jan 2010 23:57 GMT
...

> My trusty
> on-line Hebrew dictionary (which takes unpointed inflected forms),

Which dictionary is that?

> gives, for the first
>
>    /zan/  to nurture, to feed
...

I wonder whether just that one word will give Laura STS.

--
Jerry Friedman
Evan Kirshenbaum - 21 Jan 2010 08:44 GMT
> ...
>
>> My trusty
>> on-line Hebrew dictionary (which takes unpointed inflected forms),
>
> Which dictionary is that?

   http://morfix.mako.co.il/

or, on my iPhone (which is actually easier to use)

   http://m.morfix.co.il

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The whole idea of our government is
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |this:  if enough people get together
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |and act in concert, they can take
                                      |something and not pay for it.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |                  P.J. O'Rourke
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Jerry Friedman - 24 Jan 2010 06:21 GMT
> > ...
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>    http://m.morfix.co.il

Todah rabah.

--
Jerry Friedman
CDB - 23 Jan 2010 22:37 GMT
>>>>>> How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we
>>>>>> should follow without including the Ten Commandments?
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> I would have expected the first to be pointed as /zinu/ rather than
> /zanu/ if that were the case.

Thank you for that.  Wires crossed somewhere.  As for the vowels, FWIW
my modern Hebrew dictionary,which gives all lexical items with
pointing or I couldn't use it, has "zânâh" (â for qametz), for "to go
astray, to be a prostitute, to fornicate", but no "zina" that I can
find.  A possible misprint?
Evan Kirshenbaum - 23 Jan 2010 23:33 GMT
>> The words in question are /zanu/ (the first two times) and /hiznu/
>> (the last).  The -/u/ is a grammatical ending, "they will".  My
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> go astray, to be a prostitute, to fornicate", but no "zina" that I
> can find.  A possible misprint?

No, just a misreading, although I don't know how I missed it.  /zana/
(with qametz /a/[1]) is indeed there, glossed "to commit adultery".
/zin-a/ (with a dagesh), the one I quoted, is also there, marked as
"literary", so it may not be in your dictionaries.  Neither of my
printed dictionaries has it.  So no mystery.  /zanu/ it is and should
be.

[1] /A/ for Ashkenazi speakers

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Those who would give up essential
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |Liberty, to purchase a little
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |temporary Safety, deserve neither
                                      |Liberty nor Safety.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |           Benjamin Franklin
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Evan Kirshenbaum - 24 Jan 2010 06:15 GMT
> No, just a misreading, although I don't know how I missed it.  /zana/
> (with qametz /a/[1]) is indeed there, glossed "to commit adultery".
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> [1] /A/ for Ashkenazi speakers

Or, rather, /O/.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |English grammar is not taught in
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |primary or secondary schools in the
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |United States.  Sometimes some
                                      |mythology is taught under that
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |rubric, but luckily it's usually
   (650)857-7572                      |ignored, except by the credulous.
                                      |             John Lawler
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Chuck Riggs - 20 Jan 2010 13:51 GMT
>> How can we discuss Biblical teachings about what principles we
>> should follow without including the Ten Commandments?
>
>Just make sure that you get the right ten (Ex 20:2-17, Deut. 5:6-18),
>not the other, probably earlier, set in (Ex: 34:14-26).

I quoted Ex 20:2-17 which, let us pray, included the latest Service
Pack Skitt mentioned.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:27 GMT
>>>By thinking, as I usually would, that I do X instead of Y because X
>>>has more advantages for me than Y, without doing harm to others, I am
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>myself, are based on the teachings of the Bible, they are correctly
>called "religious principles", IMO.

I really don't think of my moral and ethical principles as being
Biblically based. Those principles are found more widely in
religions than just those of "the book".

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Chuck Riggs - 16 Jan 2010 12:04 GMT
>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a
>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>is no such thing as a god, and I have a low opinion of any sort of
>fundamentalists of any sort of religion.  Oh, well ...

You're a hard man, Alec. Even though I think Christianity, for
example, is a lot of phooey, I respect people who are able to find
answers for their daily lives, in the Bible. Life ain't easy.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Skitt - 16 Jan 2010 19:16 GMT
>>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a
>>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> example, is a lot of phooey, I respect people who are able to find
> answers for their daily lives, in the Bible. Life ain't easy.

Well, mine, some early circumstances excepting (those were my parents'
problem) has been quite tolerable, to my mind.  Sure, there have been times
not to my liking (divorce, death of wife), but I survived them nicely
without relying on anything supernatural.

I am fully aware that for some people life would not seem tolerable without
some religious purpose, and I'm not ever going to try to dissuade them from
that belief.  I just don't look on it as rational thinking, but that should
not matter to the "believers".  As it is, I'm the one that usually has to
defend myself for not being one of them, but that doesn't bother me as much
as it seems to bother them.

Signature

Skitt (Follower of the FOTIPU)
"The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic
and faith.  We have faith that they are pink; we logically know
that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley

tony cooper - 16 Jan 2010 21:52 GMT
>>>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a
>>>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>defend myself for not being one of them, but that doesn't bother me as much
>as it seems to bother them.

I am currently feeling very favorable about religious people.
Volunteers from many churches and religious organizations are pouring
into Haiti to offer aid and assistance.  Church groups are busy
gathering everything from blankets to canned goods to send to Haiti.

I'm trying very, very hard to not think "About time you did something
worthwhile."


Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Mike Lyle - 17 Jan 2010 20:13 GMT
[...]

> I am currently feeling very favorable about religious people.
> Volunteers from many churches and religious organizations are pouring
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I'm trying very, very hard to not think "About time you did something
> worthwhile."

You could try Non-Believers Giving Aid:
<http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/>

Of course, there are plenty of international charities that have no
confessional link, though I imagine this one is the only one to make a
"selling" point of it. But let's be fair: religious organisations
constantly do an awful lot around the world: Islamic Relief, Christian
Aid, and the rest never stop.

Signature

Mike.

Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:25 GMT
>[...]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>"selling" point of it. But let's be fair: religious organisations
>constantly do an awful lot around the world:

And they have an awful lot to make up for.

>Islamic Relief, Christian Aid, and the rest never stop.

Nor does constant enmity betwen the religions, to the point of
killing each other. It would be nice if they actually thought of
their current penchant for charity as a penance for the stuff
their religions did in the past, or are still doing.

I wonder how it all works out on the eternal books, black or red
ink?

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 12:19 GMT
>>>>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a
>>>>>>> belief in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>defend myself for not being one of them, but that doesn't bother me as much
>as it seems to bother them.

As I recall from a poll taken by The Economist, a majority of
Americans consider atheists more repugnant than terrorist suspects. We
are hated. Many people desperately want others to believe what they
believe, it seems to me.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:21 GMT
>> You're a hard man, Alec. Even though I think Christianity, for
>> example, is a lot of phooey, I respect people who are able to find
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>defend myself for not being one of them, but that doesn't bother me as much
>as it seems to bother them.

Mencken also said, "We must respect the other fellow's religion,
but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his
theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Chuck Riggs - 16 Jan 2010 11:57 GMT
>>>> How can a person behave as a good Christian should, without a belief
>>>> in God? That, to me, is one of the sticklers about being an atheist.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>vaguely eastern, vaguely new-ageish ideas. And atheism and agnosticism,
>of course.

What I know about Buddhism is largely based on the fascinating
translations by D.T. Suzuki of Japanese books about Buddhism that I
have read, in some cases, several times over. More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._T._Suzuki#.22New_Buddhism.2C.22_Japanese_Nationa
lism.2C_and_Buddhist_Modernism

Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

the Omrud - 13 Jan 2010 09:40 GMT
> * I distinguish between unbelievers and those atheists who spend a lot
> of their time trying to prove that God does not exist.  In my view
> these latter spend as much time thinking about religion as do
> religious fundamentalists.

As a point of interest, if it weren't for these discussions in AUE, I
would hardly ever think about religion at all.  That, despite the fact
that I sing in choirs which often take part in religious services, and
that I like to listen to Choral Evensong on Radio 3.  I just like the music.

Signature

David

Robin Bignall - 13 Jan 2010 21:48 GMT
>> * I distinguish between unbelievers and those atheists who spend a lot
>> of their time trying to prove that God does not exist.  In my view
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>that I sing in choirs which often take part in religious services, and
>that I like to listen to Choral Evensong on Radio 3.  I just like the music.

Couldn't have put it better myself.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Hatunen - 14 Jan 2010 00:35 GMT
>>> * I distinguish between unbelievers and those atheists who spend a lot
>>> of their time trying to prove that God does not exist.  In my view
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Couldn't have put it better myself.

And I'll second that.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Cheryl - 14 Jan 2010 14:23 GMT
>>>> * I distinguish between unbelievers and those atheists who spend a lot
>>>> of their time trying to prove that God does not exist.  In my view
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> And I'll second that.

It took me a while to understand why a friend had absolutely no interest
in what she considered to be questions that can't be answered, by which
she meant not only questions about the existence of God, but a good few
philosophical issues as well. I, on the other hand, tend to find those
topics far more interesting than ones with clear-cut answers.

Upon reflection, I realized that of course there are vast swathes of
human knowledge and experience that interest me so little that I never
even think about them unless someone else brings them up or I'm trying
to find an example for a comment like this.

Our own personalities, backgrounds and interests; the types of minds we
have and how it was educated and trained, have a LOT to do with which
topics fascinate us, and which we almost never even think about.

Signature

Cheryl

Robin Bignall - 14 Jan 2010 21:51 GMT
>>>>> * I distinguish between unbelievers and those atheists who spend a lot
>>>>> of their time trying to prove that God does not exist.  In my view
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>have and how it was educated and trained, have a LOT to do with which
>topics fascinate us, and which we almost never even think about.

Nicely put,and it's true, with regard to interests.  But with most
subjects other than a deist religion, one can start from first
principles and, given patience and intelligence, work one's way
through to understanding Quantum Theory or any other vastly complex
subject.  But with such a religion one has to start with faith and a
totally unwarranted assumption that there is some sort of God.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Cheryl - 15 Jan 2010 11:47 GMT
> Nicely put,and it's true, with regard to interests.  But with most
> subjects other than a deist religion, one can start from first
> principles and, given patience and intelligence, work one's way
> through to understanding Quantum Theory or any other vastly complex
> subject.  But with such a religion one has to start with faith and a
> totally unwarranted assumption that there is some sort of God.

Think of it as starting from a premise, not an unwarranted assumption!
(I think 'premise' is the right word; my formal training in logic is
minimal.)

I studied a bit of science years ago. I enjoyed it a lot, still do to a
small extent, but rapidly reached a point where my mathematical
illiteracy (which seemed to be incurable) prevented me from gaining any
real understanding of quantum theory and other similar ideas.

I did get the impression that the more I learned about science, the more
there was to learn, in a kind of never-ending spiral. The idea I'd left
high school with, that science explained everything, got a severe
shaking-up as I realized that each explanation was incomplete, and there
was yet another theory explaining the weaknesses of the first; and THAT
theory had its faults.... I felt particularly cheated that every time I
figured I knew what an atom was, the teachers would come up with more
information and another model!

Science is fascinating, but each model has it's unwarranted assumptions,
which are fixed by the next most advanced model, which makes assumptions
of its own, and so on and so forth.

Signature

Cheryl

Robin Bignall - 15 Jan 2010 21:41 GMT
>> Nicely put,and it's true, with regard to interests.  But with most
>> subjects other than a deist religion, one can start from first
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>(I think 'premise' is the right word; my formal training in logic is
>minimal.)

Call it what you like, but an assumption that deities exist is
unwarranted.

>I studied a bit of science years ago. I enjoyed it a lot, still do to a
>small extent, but rapidly reached a point where my mathematical
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>which are fixed by the next most advanced model, which makes assumptions
>of its own, and so on and so forth.

No, each scientific model does NOT have unwarrantable assumptions. If
it has, it's not science.  It may well be that without formal training
and possibly a specific sort of mind, the average man in the street
can't follow all of the steps which take you from Ohm's Law to General
Relativity, but each step is built on provable previous steps.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 15 Jan 2010 23:44 GMT
>>> Nicely put,and it's true, with regard to interests.  But with most
>>> subjects other than a deist religion, one can start from first
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Call it what you like, but an assumption that deities exist is
>unwarranted.

It might be unwarranted for those of us with scientific knowledge and
understanding to assume that deities exist. It seems to me to be an
eminently reasonable assumption for people in pre-scientific cultures to
make.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism

   Animism (from Latin anima "soul, life") is a philosophical,
   religious or spiritual idea that souls or spirits exist not only in
   humans but also in other animals, plants, rocks, natural phenomena
   such as thunder, geographic features such as mountains or rivers, or
   other entities of the natural environment."

I'd suggest that animism is a very reasonable "first guess" about how
the world works. We humans act in accordance with our needs. We make
decisions about how to treat other people based on how they treat us. We
look at the natural world around us. It appears to "do things to us".
Rivers flood catastrophically; volcanoes erupt; the weather becomes
damagingly bad; our animals get sick; crops fail; and so on. There are
also the good things that nature appears to "do to us".

It is reasonable, in pre-scientific cultures, to attempt to understand
the behaviour of nature towards us as being analogous to interactions
between people. "What have we done to deserve that? How can we make the
rivers, volcanoes, weather, etc, happy so that they don't do bad things
to us?"

The next step in sophistication is to recognise that it is a bit silly
to believe that rocks, winds and rivers each has an inbuilt
decision-making "mind". It is much more sensible to merge the spirits in
each of these natural features and phenomena into one or more great
spirits or gods.

It is only when we have developed some sort of scientific understanding
that we can see that nature is not consciously responding to our
behaviour in a way similar to that in which we humans consciously
respond to one another, and that there is no need to assume the
existence of decision-making spirits.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 23:31 GMT
>>>> Nicely put,and it's true, with regard to interests.  But with most
>>>> subjects other than a deist religion, one can start from first
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
> respond to one another, and that there is no need to assume the
> existence of decision-making spirits.

There are plenty of people who fervently believe that a malevolent
spirit resides in their car, computer, photocopier, washing machine...
No amount of sacrifice will placate these evil demons.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 17 Jan 2010 00:34 GMT
>There are plenty of people who fervently believe that a malevolent
>spirit resides in their car, computer, photocopier, washing machine...
>No amount of sacrifice will placate these evil demons.

As someone who used to repair computers for a living I have considerable
sympathy with the Evil Demons Hypothesis. There were occasions when the
presence of a demon appeared to be the most logical diagnosis.

Somehow it seemed to be possible to find and replace the component in
which the demon had taken up residence. Then, of course, the demon would
somehow find its way back into the computer or some other item of
equipment.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Nick Spalding - 17 Jan 2010 10:28 GMT
Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in
<udm4l55t5ub0tfdk88ogcrmuca0p7f79b1@4ax.com>
on Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:34:33 +0000:

> >There are plenty of people who fervently believe that a malevolent
> >spirit resides in their car, computer, photocopier, washing machine...
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> somehow find its way back into the computer or some other item of
> equipment.

I was in that trade once.  Sometimes the machine is carefully designed
to include hiding places for demons.  I remember an IBM 360/30 which
developed the habit of stopping dead with red lights blazing at random
intervals of a week or so.  By that time the machine had taken a machine
check interrupt and its state was nowhere near what it had been when the
error occurred, though it did still signal a microprogram parity error.
I was called in after others had failed and managed to trap it by wiring
in a bit of extra circuitry to stop the clock dead when the initial
error occurred, which left the address in the register.  When the
relevant card was pulled from the microprogram unit it was found to be
just a tiny bit off punch and some of the holes had a whisker of metal
down one side.  Duplicating the card on to a new one in a keypunch fixed
it.  I still have that card, from 1967.
Signature

Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

Robert Bannister - 18 Jan 2010 01:20 GMT
> Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in
> <udm4l55t5ub0tfdk88ogcrmuca0p7f79b1@4ax.com>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> down one side.  Duplicating the card on to a new one in a keypunch fixed
> it.  I still have that card, from 1967.

Sounds like a Florida election.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Bob Martin - 18 Jan 2010 06:45 GMT
>I was in that trade once.  Sometimes the machine is carefully designed
>to include hiding places for demons.  I remember an IBM 360/30 which
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>down one side.  Duplicating the card on to a new one in a keypunch fixed
>it.  I still have that card, from 1967.

That was CROS, wasn't it?  Was it unique to the Mod 30?  I know the 40 had TROS.
Nick Spalding - 18 Jan 2010 11:33 GMT
Bob Martin wrote, in <TrT4n.27829$Ym4.2913@text.news.virginmedia.com>
on Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:45:07 GMT:

> >I was in that trade once.  Sometimes the machine is carefully designed
> >to include hiding places for demons.  I remember an IBM 360/30 which
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> That was CROS, wasn't it?  Was it unique to the Mod 30?  I know the 40 had TROS.

It was CROS and that implementation of it using mylar cards in regular
IBM card format was unique to the 30.  I think the 360/50 used a
different form of CROS.  The 20 also used TROS as did the controllers
for 2311s and 2314s.  
Signature

Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

Richard Bollard - 19 Jan 2010 00:26 GMT
>>There are plenty of people who fervently believe that a malevolent
>>spirit resides in their car, computer, photocopier, washing machine...
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>somehow find its way back into the computer or some other item of
>equipment.

Those demons can have a sense of humour. I was once using a scanner
where mark-sense answer sheets were being scanned and I tried to tidy
the stack of scanned forms with my fore-finger. I must have tripped a
sensor because the machine stopped and the monitor readout ended with
the word "Finger".

It turned out that the last sheet it read before my finger tripped the
sensor was for a person named "Finger". Gave me paws, 'though.
Signature

Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia

To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.

Cheryl - 17 Jan 2010 10:54 GMT
> There are plenty of people who fervently believe that a malevolent
> spirit resides in their car, computer, photocopier, washing machine...
> No amount of sacrifice will placate these evil demons.

My father, who was not religious at all, claimed he believed in
gremlins, which he learned about during his military training at the end
of WW II. They are evil creatures which infest military aircraft,
causing them to malfunction.

Of course, he also liked telling tall tales, and seeing which of them he
could persuade his naive children to accept, but he could not have been
inspired by the movie because that came much later, and in any case, he
rarely watched movies.

Signature

Cheryl

Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:39 GMT
>> There are plenty of people who fervently believe that a malevolent
>> spirit resides in their car, computer, photocopier, washing machine...
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>inspired by the movie because that came much later, and in any case, he
>rarely watched movies.

There were animated films during WW2 about gremlins infecting
aircraft.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 12:25 GMT
<snip>

>There are plenty of people who fervently believe that a malevolent
>spirit resides in their car, computer, photocopier, washing machine...
>No amount of sacrifice will placate these evil demons.

I have never believed in them, but on the other hand it pays not to
offend anything as complicated as an automobile or a computer. Their
revenge can be fearsome.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Richard Bollard - 19 Jan 2010 00:21 GMT
>>>> Nicely put,and it's true, with regard to interests.  But with most
>>>> subjects other than a deist religion, one can start from first
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>respond to one another, and that there is no need to assume the
>existence of decision-making spirits.

This was the fallacy that Spinoza pinned down nicely, the human belief
in "final cause". The apple tree exists to provide me with apples. All
things exist for a purpose and if we cannot detect that purpose, it
must be (a) God's (mysterious) purpose.

If you accept that stuff just happens and take the will out of God,
you end up with "God" becoming something close to our current concept
of "nature".
Signature

Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia

To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.

Cheryl - 16 Jan 2010 00:28 GMT
> No, each scientific model does NOT have unwarrantable assumptions. If
> it has, it's not science.  It may well be that without formal training
> and possibly a specific sort of mind, the average man in the street
> can't follow all of the steps which take you from Ohm's Law to General
> Relativity, but each step is built on provable previous steps.

I didn't say any scientific model was built on unwarrantable
assumptions; or at least I wasn't trying to say it did. You discover
after you test the model that some of your assumptions were wrong and
need to be changed so you can construct a new and improved model which
is bound to also be wrong in some way, so later scientists will come up
with a newer one, and so on. Scientific models provide an approximate
answer to the questions of how various things in our universe work. The
explanations tend to increase in strength and accuracy over time, but
they have their limitations.

I was tyring to say that science tries to answer 'how' questions, not
the 'why' questions which are in the realm of theology and philosophy.
If you're trying to describe the exact nature of an atom and the exact
processes by which it combines, you need science. If you want to know
why there are atoms in the first place, you need theology or philosophy
or possibly the willingness to decide that the question is hardly
important, unanswerable and/or not very interesting. Both science and
philosophy/theology are necessarily imperfect approaches to the
understanding the universe we live in, but they have different strengths
and weaknesses and different focuses.

And there's no particular reason you need to start from the assumption
that the material world is all there is if you're studying religion or
philosophy, however essential that assumption is when you're studying
science.

Signature

Cheryl

Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 01:16 GMT
>> Nicely put,and it's true, with regard to interests.  But with most
>> subjects other than a deist religion, one can start from first
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> which are fixed by the next most advanced model, which makes assumptions
> of its own, and so on and so forth.

Electricity going backwards was a shock. Waves and particles seemed to
be moving into religious territory. Some of the stuff scientists take
for granted today makes as much sense to me as some religious mumbo-jumbo.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 03:10 GMT
> Electricity going backwards was a shock. Waves and particles seemed
> to be moving into religious territory. Some of the stuff scientists
> take for granted today makes as much sense to me as some religious
> mumbo-jumbo.

So have we hit "sufficiently advanced" or are we still sneaking up on
it?

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Other computer companies have spent
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |15 years working on fault-tolerant
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |computers.  Microsoft has spent
                                      |its time more fruitfully, working
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |on fault-tolerant *users*.
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 23:33 GMT
>> Electricity going backwards was a shock. Waves and particles seemed
>> to be moving into religious territory. Some of the stuff scientists
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> So have we hit "sufficiently advanced" or are we still sneaking up on
> it?

Oh, a hit I think. I looks like magic to me.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:18 GMT
>>> Electricity going backwards was a shock. Waves and particles seemed
>>> to be moving into religious territory. Some of the stuff scientists
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Oh, a hit I think. I looks like magic to me.

Damn. I should have read your post before I posted....

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Robert Bannister - 19 Jan 2010 01:34 GMT
>>>> Electricity going backwards was a shock. Waves and particles seemed
>>>> to be moving into religious territory. Some of the stuff scientists
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Damn. I should have read your post before I posted....

And I should have included a "t" in "It".

Signature

Rob Bannister

Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:17 GMT
>> Electricity going backwards was a shock. Waves and particles seemed
>> to be moving into religious territory. Some of the stuff scientists
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>So have we hit "sufficiently advanced" or are we still sneaking up on
>it?

What was it Arthur C Clark said about advanced technology?
Ah: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from magic."

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Steve Hayes - 18 Jan 2010 07:37 GMT
>What was it Arthur C Clark said about advanced technology?
>Ah: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
>from magic."

Didn't some other thread start off with that one?

Does that mean we've come full circle and this thread is dead?

I suppose it must be, since it was sort of OT to begin with.

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Peter Moylan - 19 Jan 2010 11:07 GMT
>> What was it Arthur C Clark said about advanced technology? Ah: "Any
>> sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> I suppose it must be, since it was sort of OT to begin with.

And all of us have now forgotten why it was sort of OT.

Given the direction in which the discussion drifted, it might be to the
point to quote something by Philip Dick: "Reality is that which, when
you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Drug-induced delirium was a recurring theme in Dick's writing, so the
above probably wasn't intended to be a comment on religion.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Chuck Riggs - 16 Jan 2010 12:59 GMT
<snip>

>Waves and particles seemed to
>be moving into religious territory.

Except that what quantum mechanics predicts can be demonstrated. That
is not the case with religious theory.

>Some of the stuff scientists take
>for granted today makes as much sense to me as some religious mumbo-jumbo.

OK, but it wouldn't if you belonged to the scientific priesthood,
people who can prove the theories they espouse.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 18:50 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> OK, but it wouldn't if you belonged to the scientific priesthood,
> people who can prove the theories they espouse.

   We cannot make the mystery go away by 'explaining' how it works.
   We will just *tell* you how it works.

                           Richard Feynman, _Lectures on Physics_

From quotes from Feynman[1], Bohr[2], and others, as well as from
talking to physicists, the impression I get is that it never does stop
seeming somewhat magical.  It can be demonstrated, and it's
predictable, but it's can't be made to make sense.  Of course, science
doesn't stop being science just because the human mind can't wrap its
head around it, just as magic wouldn't stop being magic even if it
were demonstrated to follow demonstrable (supernatural) rules.

[1] who is also supposed to have said that anybody who claims to
   understand quantum mechanics is either lying or crazy.

[2] "Anyone who can contemplate quantum mechanics without getting
   dizzy hasn't properly understood it."

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The reason that we don't have
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |"bear-proof" garbage cans in the
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |park is that there is a significant
                                      |overlap in intelligence between the
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |smartest bears and the dumbest
   (650)857-7572                      |humans.
                                      |             Yosemite Park Ranger
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Robin Bignall - 16 Jan 2010 21:13 GMT
>> <snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>[2] "Anyone who can contemplate quantum mechanics without getting
>    dizzy hasn't properly understood it."

It probably doesn't yet make sense because we don't yet have a
complete understanding of how it (the universe) works.  We have some
equations both for big (galactic) and small (sub-atomic) events, and
by applying those equations we can calculate the effects of changes in
those two separate environments to within very close to the actual
measurements we make.  But trying to combine the results from those
two areas leads to results that make no sense compared with what we
can measure.  So the equations in each field get close to
measurements, but the actual theories themselves must be incomplete or
completely wrong.  The equations themselves allow us to use the
results technologically, but they're not really answering "how?"
completely.  Hence string theory and other attempts to find a TOE. But
we will get there, eventually.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Peter Moylan - 19 Jan 2010 11:20 GMT
>>> <snip>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> It probably doesn't yet make sense because we don't yet have a
> complete understanding of how it (the universe) works.

We do, however, have some solidly proven results of the "you're never
going to understand it" variety.  Here are some of them, paraphrased for
simplicity.

- The more accurately you measure one thing, the less accurate
  your other measurements will become. You can't ever eliminate
  that wrinkle, you can only shift it about.

- There is no algorithm that can predict whether a Turing machine
  will halt.  More importantly, there never will be.

- The universe, like my desk, becomes more and more disordered
  with time.

- There are mathematical theorems which are true, but which
  cannot be proved to be true.

- The ways of God are sometimes difficult to understand.

That last one is from religion.  The others are pure science.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Mark Brader - 19 Jan 2010 21:14 GMT
Peter Moylan:
> We do, however, have some solidly proven results of the "you're never
> going to understand it" variety.  Here are some of them, paraphrased for
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> That last one is from religion.  The others are pure science.

I count one religion, two science, and two math.
Signature

Mark Brader, Toronto                    (require 'msb)
msb@vex.net                                     -- Lars Lindberg

sjdevnull@yahoo.com - 20 Jan 2010 04:29 GMT
> Peter Moylan:
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> I count one religion, two science, and two math.

I see one religious, two scientific, one math, and one logical. There
are certainly completely decidable mathematical systems, where every
theorem which is true is provable and every non-true theorem is
disprovable--I believe Peano arithmetic is not complete, and I'm sure
ZF isn't, but there are consistent, complete sets of mathematical
axioms.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 20 Jan 2010 04:06 GMT
>  - There is no algorithm that can predict whether a Turing machine
>    will halt.  More importantly, there never will be.

That's for an arbitrary Turing machine.  There are large
(recognizable) classes of Turing machines for which the answer is
easy.  (Those without loops, for instance.)

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The look on our faces isn't confusion.
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |It's disbelief.
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |
                                      |          Jon Stewart
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Nick - 21 Jan 2010 19:28 GMT
> It [quantum mechanics] probably doesn't yet make sense because we
> don't yet have a complete understanding of how it (the universe)
> works.  

I think it doesn't "make sense" just because it is so utterly contrary
to how the macroscopic world works.

We're hard wired to work in that world, and something that is counter to
all our instincts will always feel weird.
Signature

Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

Robert Bannister - 16 Jan 2010 23:36 GMT
>> <snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>     dizzy hasn't properly understood it."
>  

Some first-class quotes there. You have described the problem very well.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 12:39 GMT
>> <snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>talking to physicists, the impression I get is that it never does stop
>seeming somewhat magical.  

<snip>

Without the magic I wouldn't love mathematics, relativity or what I
understand of quantum mechanics, as I do.

>[1] who is also supposed to have said that anybody who claims to
>    understand quantum mechanics is either lying or crazy.
>
>[2] "Anyone who can contemplate quantum mechanics without getting
>    dizzy hasn't properly understood it."
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Hatunen - 18 Jan 2010 05:30 GMT
>> <snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>head around it, just as magic wouldn't stop being magic even if it
>were demonstrated to follow demonstrable (supernatural) rules.

The so-called "Copenhagen Interpretation" pretty much ruled out
the search for the "why".

>[1] who is also supposed to have said that anybody who claims to
>    understand quantum mechanics is either lying or crazy.
>
>[2] "Anyone who can contemplate quantum mechanics without getting
>    dizzy hasn't properly understood it."

You don't have to understand it, you just apply it.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Chuck Riggs - 13 Jan 2010 14:41 GMT
>>I was discussing the meaning of "I believe" in the context of religion
>>and faith and whether an person can say he has no "beliefs".
>
>It might then be clearer to say that you have no religious beliefs (or
>thoughts, or views).

Ouch.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

annily - 13 Jan 2010 01:20 GMT
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:14:16 GMT, the
>>>>>> Omrud<usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> I was discussing the meaning of "I believe" in the context of religion
> and faith and whether an person can say he has no "beliefs".

Fair enough. I forgot about the earlier part of the thread.

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

Skitt - 11 Jan 2010 19:51 GMT
>>> Better, in my view, is to avoid the word altogether. If I want to
>>> know what someone believes, I ask them what they believe, not what
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Materialists, but that's not the only kind.  (Some Buddhists, for
> example.)

I took a test on line and was classified as 100% Secular Humanist.  How
nice.
Signature

Skitt (AmE)
humanistic, even.

R H Draney - 11 Jan 2010 20:06 GMT
Skitt filted:

>>>> Better, in my view, is to avoid the word altogether. If I want to
>>>> know what someone believes, I ask them what they believe, not what
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>I took a test on line and was classified as 100% Secular Humanist.  How
>nice.

I took what I assume is the same test and was classified as 100%
Neo-Pagan...(the test norms the results so you're always 100% of whatever your
closest match is)....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 14:38 GMT
>Skitt filted:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>Neo-Pagan...(the test norms the results so you're always 100% of whatever your
>closest match is)....r

At least, in the good old days, we knew what each god was capable of,
if not always what to expect from them.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

the Omrud - 11 Jan 2010 20:10 GMT
>>> Better, in my view, is to avoid the word altogether. If I want to know
>>> what someone believes, I ask them what they believe, not what they
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Materialists, but that's not the only kind.  (Some Buddhists, for
> example.)

Reading your reponse again, I see that you view "I don't have a belief"
as a cop-out because everybody has a philosophical commitment.

I won't argue with the suggestion that everybody has a philosophical
commitment, but I have no idea what that's got to do with belief.

Signature

David

Garrett Wollman - 12 Jan 2010 00:06 GMT
>Reading your reponse again, I see that you view "I don't have a belief"
>as a cop-out because everybody has a philosophical commitment.
>
>I won't argue with the suggestion that everybody has a philosophical
>commitment, but I have no idea what that's got to do with belief.

Those commitments aren't random noise: they are consequences of a
system of belief.  Your system of belief may well be Materialism --
you suggest as much, without explicitly admitting to it -- but you
cannot deny that you have one.

Perhaps you are conflating belief and faith?

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

the Omrud - 12 Jan 2010 09:19 GMT
>> Reading your reponse again, I see that you view "I don't have a belief"
>> as a cop-out because everybody has a philosophical commitment.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> you suggest as much, without explicitly admitting to it -- but you
> cannot deny that you have one.

I have an uncountable number of views or opinions, which you may be
calling beliefs.  It's my view that if I behave well towards others,
they will mostly behave well towards me.  Do you call that a belief?  If
so, then I have a system based on a large number of opinions.  I don't
call that a "belief system", which would seem to require some sort of
orthodoxy.

> Perhaps you are conflating belief and faith?

In this discussion, yes.  I have avoided using the word "believe".  I
would use it in normal discussion, e.g. "I believe the train is running
20 minutes late", but that's not any sort of adherance to a world view.
 It's just a way of saying "It's my understanding ....".

Signature

David

R H Draney - 12 Jan 2010 09:38 GMT
the Omrud filted:

>> Perhaps you are conflating belief and faith?
>
>In this discussion, yes.  I have avoided using the word "believe".  I
>would use it in normal discussion, e.g. "I believe the train is running
>20 minutes late", but that's not any sort of adherance to a world view.
>  It's just a way of saying "It's my understanding ....".

Taking it out of the realm of philosophy, I believed long before Andrew Wiles
gave his two-day presentation that there were no integer solutions to
a^n+b^n=z^n for n>2, simply because Fermat believed it and I figured he knew
what he was doing...turns out that my belief was justified...twenty years before
that, I believed that four colors sufficed to fill in a simply-connected planar
map, and Haaken and Appel bore me out....

I'm now possessed of a belief that every even number greater than two can be
expressed as the sum of two primes, and if the current rate of progress in these
matters keeps up, I suspect that my belief shall be vindicated before the
twenty-teens is out (and we can put yet another conjecture into a gold box)....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 14:48 GMT
>the Omrud filted:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>a^n+b^n=z^n for n>2, simply because Fermat believed it and I figured he knew
>what he was doing...turns out that my belief was justified...

AOL.

>twenty years before
>that, I believed that four colors sufficed to fill in a simply-connected planar
>map, and Haaken and Appel bore me out....

AOL, further born out by my scribbles on dozens of paper napkins while
waiting for a meal, over the years.

>I'm now possessed of a belief that every even number greater than two can be
>expressed as the sum of two primes, and if the current rate of progress in these
>matters keeps up, I suspect that my belief shall be vindicated before the
>twenty-teens is out (and we can put yet another conjecture into a gold box)....r

Don't hold your breath on that one, Ron. Infinity is a big number.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Evan Kirshenbaum - 12 Jan 2010 16:29 GMT
>>Taking it out of the realm of philosophy, I believed long before
>>Andrew Wiles gave his two-day presentation that there were no
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Don't hold your breath on that one, Ron. Infinity is a big number.

Is it bigger for that one than for the other two?

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |It is error alone which needs the
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |support of government.  Truth can
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |stand by itself.
                                      |                  Thomas Jefferson
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

annily - 13 Jan 2010 01:23 GMT
>>> Taking it out of the realm of philosophy, I believed long before
>>> Andrew Wiles gave his two-day presentation that there were no
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Is it bigger for that one than for the other two?

It it really a number at all?

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

Evan Kirshenbaum - 13 Jan 2010 01:43 GMT
>>>> Taking it out of the realm of philosophy, I believed long before
>>>> Andrew Wiles gave his two-day presentation that there were no
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> It it really a number at all?

Not according to my calculus professor at Stanford, Prof. Chung.
"Infinity is not a number!" (in a thick Chinese accent) was one of his
frequent pronouncements.  Of course, it depends on your definition of
"number".  In IEEE floating point, it is.  TeX has three orders of
infinities, each of which can be usefully multiplied by constants
(though not by other infinities) and which can be added to other
numbers.  And in some systems, the garden variety "cardinality of the
set of integers" infinity is a relatively small number.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Whatever it is that the government
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |does, sensible Americans would prefer
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |that the government do it to somebody
                                      |else.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |                  P.J. O'Rourke
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Chuck Riggs - 13 Jan 2010 15:02 GMT
>>>>> Taking it out of the realm of philosophy, I believed long before
>>>>> Andrew Wiles gave his two-day presentation that there were no
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>numbers.  And in some systems, the garden variety "cardinality of the
>set of integers" infinity is a relatively small number.

Big enough for most practical purposes, though.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

R H Draney - 13 Jan 2010 17:53 GMT
Evan Kirshenbaum filted:

>>>> Don't hold your breath on that one, Ron. Infinity is a big number.
>>> Is it bigger for that one than for the other two?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>numbers.  And in some systems, the garden variety "cardinality of the
>set of integers" infinity is a relatively small number.

In Conway's system, some infinities are numbers and others are merely games:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Numbers_and_Games

....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Nick - 12 Jan 2010 20:16 GMT
>>> Better, in my view, is to avoid the word altogether. If I want to know
>>> what someone believes, I ask them what they believe, not what they
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Materialists, but that's not the only kind.  (Some Buddhists, for
> example.)

I don't "believe" in a code of ethics.  I follow it. I may "believe"
it's a useful way to live, but that's not belief the way a belief in a
deity is - it's an entirely different sort of meaning of the word and
one can't be replaced by the other.

"Do you believe we should have another drink".   "That's blasphemy, you
should believe in no other god".   That's as meaningless exchange as
me giving you my system of ethics in exchange for a question about my
creation myths.
Signature

Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 14:11 GMT
>CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca>:
>>We really need two words for "agnostic":
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>etc) I use that as a prompt for questions about their beliefs and
>practices.

Good point, Mike, but labels save so much time.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 14:10 GMT
<snip>

>We really need two words for "agnostic":
>one for those who can't decide if God exists, and one for those, like
>me, who think God exists but is unknowable.

I suggest fiddle-f.ckers and mystics, respectively.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 14:04 GMT
>> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism.

<snip>

>In a recent Australian poll, it was reported that 68% of respondents
>believed in some sort of god. That didn't surprise me. What did
>surprise, and frighten, me, was the fact that 25% of respondents
>believed in the literal truth of the Christian Bible. That's scary. That
>25% matched the 25% who identified themselves as atheists.

That 68% of the respondents don't seem to understand the implications
of the Origin of Species vis-à-vis the Creator expounded by the Bible,
disappoints me.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Evan Kirshenbaum - 13 Jan 2010 18:39 GMT
>>> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> implications of the Origin of Species vis-à-vis the Creator
> expounded by the Bible, disappoints me.

Although I'm an atheist I have to ask what implications you see
besides the notion that some sort of creator deity was no longer
logically the simplest solution to explain the manifest complexity of
life.  And even at that (I have to confess that I've never read the
whole work) it would seem to have been reasonable to ask "Yeah, but
where did the first plants and animals come from?" and posit some sort
of creator.  And some of that 68% were probably of the mind that
"Yeah, you can get to hominids by purely natural means, but it takes a
god to turn them into people."

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |I value writers such as Fiske.
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |They serve as valuable object
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |lessons by showing that the most
                                      |punctilious compliance with the
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |rules of usage has so little to do
   (650)857-7572                      |with either writing or thinking
                                      |well.
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/        |        --Richard Hershberger

Mike Barnes - 13 Jan 2010 22:39 GMT
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com>:

>>>In a recent Australian poll, it was reported that 68% of respondents
>>>believed in some sort of god. That didn't surprise me. What did
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>where did the first plants and animals come from?" and posit some sort
>of creator.

But there's a big difference between "some sort of creator" and the
literal truth of the bible.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

HVS - 13 Jan 2010 23:04 GMT
On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote

> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com>:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> But there's a big difference between "some sort of creator" and
> the literal truth of the bible.

But that's not the point Evan was questioning;  the challenge (as I
read it) was about the 68% who believed in a god, not the 25% that
believed literal biblical truth.

Chuck (again as I read it) seems to be saying that OOS effectively
negates "the Creator expounded by the Bible".  But there are clearly
many interpretations of the biblical Creator as expounded therein;  
the literal is just one of them.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Mike Barnes - 14 Jan 2010 01:10 GMT
HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>:
>On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>read it) was about the 68% who believed in a god, not the 25% that
>believed literal biblical truth.

You're right. I was distracted by the "68%" in the immediately preceding
paragraph. I wonder if Chuck meant to write "25%". But I'm thinking less
clearly than usual due to jet lag, so perhaps not.

>Chuck (again as I read it) seems to be saying that OOS effectively
>negates "the Creator expounded by the Bible".  But there are clearly
>many interpretations of the biblical Creator as expounded therein;
>the literal is just one of them.

To my mind, if you take away the literal, it doesn't leave anything of
any substance.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Chuck Riggs - 14 Jan 2010 15:01 GMT
>HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>:
>>On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>paragraph. I wonder if Chuck meant to write "25%". But I'm thinking less
>clearly than usual due to jet lag, so perhaps not.

Two thirds of the respondents didn't understand the implications of
Origin. That is roughly 68 per cent.

>>Chuck (again as I read it) seems to be saying that OOS effectively
>>negates "the Creator expounded by the Bible".  But there are clearly
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>To my mind, if you take away the literal, it doesn't leave anything of
>any substance.

We agree, I'd say. Nothing is left, I might add, but science and the
scientific method, a thought I think Darwin would have supported.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Cheryl - 14 Jan 2010 19:42 GMT
>> HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>:
>>> On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote
<snip - I think without messing up the attributions>
>>> Chuck (again as I read it) seems to be saying that OOS effectively
>>> negates "the Creator expounded by the Bible".  But there are clearly
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> We agree, I'd say. Nothing is left, I might add, but science and the
> scientific method, a thought I think Darwin would have supported.

I gather then that most of you do not support the use of metaphor
(presumably in literature as well as religious writings) to convey very
complicated ideas in a non-literal fashion? And you certainly don't
agree with the theologian who claimed (I'm paraphrasing here) that myth
expresses greater truth than any other form of writing?

I tend to be a bit literal-minded myself, but there are a lot of people
who argue for the power of metaphor and myth, and they aren't all
religious believers either.

Signature

Cheryl

Nick - 15 Jan 2010 18:59 GMT
>>HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>:
>>>On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> We agree, I'd say. Nothing is left, I might add, but science and the
> scientific method, a thought I think Darwin would have supported.

You disagree with the Catholic Church (a fairly large body in this
field!) who have, for example, said that there is no conflict between
Catholicism and evolution (I summarise from memory).
Signature

Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

Chuck Riggs - 16 Jan 2010 13:22 GMT
>>>HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>:
>>>>On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>field!) who have, for example, said that there is no conflict between
>Catholicism and evolution (I summarise from memory).

I wonder if the Church representative who said that has read Origin of
Species.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Cheryl - 16 Jan 2010 13:28 GMT
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:59:34 +0000, Nick

>> You disagree with the Catholic Church (a fairly large body in this
>> field!) who have, for example, said that there is no conflict between
>> Catholicism and evolution (I summarise from memory).
>
> I wonder if the Church representative who said that has read Origin of
> Species.

I expect whoever wrote the statement did. The Catholic church doesn't
move quickly, but they're usually thorough.

Signature

Cheryl

Chuck Riggs - 17 Jan 2010 14:00 GMT
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:59:34 +0000, Nick
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>I expect whoever wrote the statement did. The Catholic church doesn't
>move quickly, but they're usually thorough.

Be careful what you say. NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Pat Durkin - 16 Jan 2010 15:17 GMT
>>>>HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>:
>>>>>On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>>> of
>>> Origin. That is roughly 68 per cent.

>>>>To my mind, if you take away the literal, it doesn't leave
>>>>anything of
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> of
> Species.

From my teens (in the 1950s) I have understood that the Church has no
dispute with the theory of evolution.  There may be people who have
replaced religious belief with worship of the theory of evolution, but
the theory in itself does not demand such obeisance.
Wood Avens - 14 Jan 2010 15:15 GMT
>HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>:
>>On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>To my mind, if you take away the literal, it doesn't leave anything of
>any substance.

It's interesting (or at least, it interests me) that as recently as
1997 the radical theologian Don Cupitt could write

"We may be able to develop an account of religious faith in God that
is independent of philosophical monotheism.  We would learn to
separate the poetical and religious use of the idea of God from the
philosophical doctrine that there does in fact exist an infinite and
eternal super Being [...]  

"Can we in fact separate the God of religion from the god of the
philosophers?  Most people seem to think not.  We live at a time when
the god of the philosophers, the really existing, all-powerful Being
out there, is rapidly fading away, and people are tending to assume
that when he dies, religion dies too.  That is a pity: we can do
better than that."

Note that Cupitt sees the idea of a literal, factual god as a
philosophical statement rather than a religious one.  Yet less than 15
years later most people find it hard to conceive of a religion which
doesn't entail belief in a literal, factual deity.  The theologian
Karen Armstrong shows that what almost all religions were about, until
fairly recently, was not belief at all but practice.  The sense of
"belief" in which virtue is ascribed to the ability to accept an
implausible proposition seems to be a very recent development.

From where I sit, this has been the result of the wholesale hijacking
of "religion", "belief" and "God" (both the words and the concepts) by
the mainly-American literalist fundamentalists, again only within the
past 15 years or so.  And this in turn seems to be the consequence of,
reaction to, the rise of disbelief.

It's now widely assumed that if someone professes a religious faith
they must therefore believe in the literal truth of all sorts of
anti-scientific fairy-tales.  Which is a bummer for all the people
whose faith admits nothing of the kind.

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

Robin Bignall - 14 Jan 2010 22:19 GMT
>>HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>:
>>>On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
>"belief" in which virtue is ascribed to the ability to accept an
>implausible proposition seems to be a very recent development.

I hope I've understood the above.  To my mind, if you separate
religion from the fantastic or supernatural, you are left with a set
of "rules for living" which have either been adopted by a society, or
imposed on them by priests or leaders, to help them understand the
world and hopefully make it a more friendly place for them.  In that
sense, capitalism, communism, socialism etc. are forms of religious
practice.

>From where I sit, this has been the result of the wholesale hijacking
>of "religion", "belief" and "God" (both the words and the concepts) by
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>anti-scientific fairy-tales.  Which is a bummer for all the people
>whose faith admits nothing of the kind.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

HVS - 14 Jan 2010 22:34 GMT
On 14 Jan 2010, Robin Bignall wrote

>> Note that Cupitt sees the idea of a literal, factual god as a
>> philosophical statement rather than a religious one.  Yet less
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> for them.  In that sense, capitalism, communism, socialism etc.
> are forms of religious practice.

(Undoubtedly in over my depth here.)

Am I right in assuming that some philosopher, somewhere, has
premised the independent existence of a set of non-relative,
right/wrong ethics or morals, without accepting as inevitable the
existence of a supreme entity/guiding intelligence that generated
those principles?

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Cheryl - 15 Jan 2010 11:52 GMT
> On 14 Jan 2010, Robin Bignall wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> existence of a supreme entity/guiding intelligence that generated
> those principles?

I don't know about a philosopher, but I do know someone who argues
exactly that - the mystery novelist who writes under Jane Haddam, in her
blog. I believe her argument is that given the basic realities of human
nature, it is possible to derive certain rules - and which 'rules' (both
rules and cultural beliefs about such things as human nature) you choose
determines the kind of society you will get.

Signature

Cheryl

LFS - 15 Jan 2010 12:54 GMT
> I don't know about a philosopher, but I do know someone who argues
> exactly that - the mystery novelist who writes under Jane Haddam, in her
> blog. I believe her argument is that given the basic realities of human
> nature, it is possible to derive certain rules - and which 'rules' (both
> rules and cultural beliefs about such things as human nature) you choose
> determines the kind of society you will get.

I've never heard of her before. Are her books good?
Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Cheryl - 15 Jan 2010 13:09 GMT
>> I don't know about a philosopher, but I do know someone who argues
>> exactly that - the mystery novelist who writes under Jane Haddam, in
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> I've never heard of her before. Are her books good?

I like them.

She's an American. Her best-known and current series features an
Armenian-American retired FBI agent who is called in to consult on
various situations. They can be read in order - Gregor's relationship
with the best-selling fantasy author Bennis develops slowly over the
series. If I had to classify them, I'd say they're sort-of cosy, but the
more recent ones particularly tend to focus on real contemporary
situations - conspiracy theorists, pop tarts (er, the young women who
are famous for being famous), etc., so they aren't 'cozy' in the 'tea
with the vicar and Miss Marple' sense. Some of her earlier ones under
other names are darker.

Some people find the 'issue' aspect make them a bit dogmatic, perhaps,
but I think they're well-written and always interesting.

http://www.janehaddam.com/

Signature

Cheryl

Chuck Riggs - 15 Jan 2010 13:02 GMT
>On 14 Jan 2010, Robin Bignall wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>existence of a supreme entity/guiding intelligence that generated
>those principles?

Buddhas, among others, do that.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Nick - 15 Jan 2010 19:07 GMT
> (Undoubtedly in over my depth here.)
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> existence of a supreme entity/guiding intelligence that generated
> those principles?

I'm pretty well certain that I've read a reference to some work that
says that there are some universals of morals (even in societies that
don't necessarily exhibit them).

Here's a book that seems to say something about it:
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703
Signature

Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

James Silverton - 14 Jan 2010 22:37 GMT
Robin  wrote  on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:19:14 +0000:

>>> HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>:
>> It's interesting (or at least, it interests me) that as
>> recently as 1997 the radical theologian Don Cupitt could
>> write

Was there really a theologian called Dan Cupitt? The nearest I can come
to his name is the enigmatic reference in "Love's Labors Lost" to "Don
Cupid".

Signature

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Wood Avens - 14 Jan 2010 22:46 GMT
> Robin  wrote  on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:19:14 +0000:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>to his name is the enigmatic reference in "Love's Labors Lost" to "Don
>Cupid".

Don, not Dan.  Yes, indeed, there still is.  See eg www.doncupitt.com,
or Google for him.

(He's in Oxford for a Sea of Faith* meeting next Wednesday afternoon,
whcih is why I was re-reading one of his books.)

* An organisation which regards religious faith as a purely human
creation.

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

Chuck Riggs - 15 Jan 2010 12:28 GMT
<snip>

>To my mind, if you separate
>religion from the fantastic or supernatural, you are left with a set
>of "rules for living" which have either been adopted by a society, or
>imposed on them by priests or leaders, to help them understand the
>world and hopefully make it a more friendly place for them.  

That is the truth in a nutshell, IMO.

<snip>
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Chuck Riggs - 14 Jan 2010 14:59 GMT
>On 13 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>many interpretations of the biblical Creator as expounded therein;  
>the literal is just one of them.

That was not the impression I was left with after reading "The Origin
of Species": Darwin did not address many interpretations of the
Creator, if that is what you are saying.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Hatunen - 14 Jan 2010 18:39 GMT
>Chuck (again as I read it) seems to be saying that OOS effectively
>negates "the Creator expounded by the Bible".  But there are clearly
>many interpretations of the biblical Creator as expounded therein;  
>the literal is just one of them.

That raises the question of just why the Bible should be taken
metaphorically or allegorically or whatever, rahter than
literally? Where does that leave the religious status of the
Bible? And where does the "interpretation" end?

Not to mention that such re-interpretation would seem to put the
examination of other cultures' creation myths on an equal
footing. If the Bible is the Word of God, how come God doesn't
seem to be able to say what he/she/it means? If it is not the
Word of God, what makes the Bible special?

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Garrett Wollman - 14 Jan 2010 18:52 GMT
>That raises the question of just why the Bible should be taken
>metaphorically or allegorically or whatever, rahter than
>literally? Where does that leave the religious status of the
>Bible?

In the same place as it was before.

>And where does the "interpretation" end?

That's a matter of dispute among those communities for whom the
(presumably you mean Christian) Bible is a sacred text.  Some believe
that each individual has the right and duty to interpret the text on
his own.  Others have a more historical tradition.  (There's a word
for this that I'm not bringing to mind.)

>Not to mention that such re-interpretation would seem to put the
>examination of other cultures' creation myths on an equal
>footing. If the Bible is the Word of God, how come God doesn't
>seem to be able to say what he/she/it means? If it is not the
>Word of God, what makes the Bible special?

Well, of course, not everybody believes that the Bible is the Word of
God, even among those who worship that particular God.  But those who
do generally take the Bible for what it is: a historical document,
created for the benefit of a particular community in a particular
place at a particular historical moment.  They still assume that it
was somehow divinely inspired, but they approach it with the
understanding that (a) it was intended to be used by people who lived
more than two thousand years ago, and (b) the people who wrote it,
even if they were divinely inspired, were embedded in a culture that
understood the world in a particular way.  Or so that is my
understanding (I don't believe in divine inspiration, at least not at
the level of gods dictating scripture to their followers).

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

Hatunen - 14 Jan 2010 19:15 GMT
>>That raises the question of just why the Bible should be taken
>>metaphorically or allegorically or whatever, rahter than
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>created for the benefit of a particular community in a particular
>place at a particular historical moment.  

The Bible's historicity is rather dubious through much of the Old
Testament, much of it having been swiped and re-edited from more
ancient myths fromm the area of mesopotamia.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Evan Kirshenbaum - 14 Jan 2010 19:27 GMT
> The Bible's historicity is rather dubious through much of the Old
> Testament, much of it having been swiped and re-edited from more
> ancient myths fromm the area of mesopotamia.

That really only applies to the first eleven chapters of Genesis,
doesn't it?  Up until Abraham, the first of "our" guys comes on the
scene.  Everything before that is "just so" explanation for how the
world came to be the way it is, and you'd want it to be roughly the
same as everybody else's explanations, allowing for the fact that
"they" got the details wrong and didn't account for how important your
god was.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |A burro is an a.s. A burrow is a
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |hole in the ground. As a
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |journalist, you are expected to
                                      |know the difference.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |             UPI Stylebook
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Hatunen - 14 Jan 2010 20:15 GMT
>> The Bible's historicity is rather dubious through much of the Old
>> Testament, much of it having been swiped and re-edited from more
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>"they" got the details wrong and didn't account for how important your
>god was.

There isn't any real evidence to support the Exodus story,
either.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Evan Kirshenbaum - 15 Jan 2010 00:34 GMT
>>> The Bible's historicity is rather dubious through much of the Old
>>> Testament, much of it having been swiped and re-edited from more
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> There isn't any real evidence to support the Exodus story,
> either.

Sure, but it doesn't appear to be borrowed from the surrounding
groups, as far as I know.  It's their own myth.  And it's meant to be
just theirs, so it would be embarassing if others had similar
stories.  But everybody can have a flood.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |English grammar is not taught in
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |primary or secondary schools in the
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |United States.  Sometimes some
                                      |mythology is taught under that
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |rubric, but luckily it's usually
   (650)857-7572                      |ignored, except by the credulous.
                                      |             John Lawler
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Hatunen - 15 Jan 2010 21:33 GMT
>>>> The Bible's historicity is rather dubious through much of the Old
>>>> Testament, much of it having been swiped and re-edited from more
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>just theirs, so it would be embarassing if others had similar
>stories.  But everybody can have a flood.

I reckon the exodus myth was needed to justify all the killing
and genocide that the wandering Hebrews engaged in.

The story of Moses being placed in a basket and floated
downstream comes from similar regional myths, such as the myth
around Sargon. Marduk can be linked to the parting of the waters
of the Red Sea. A lot of other aspects of Exodus can be found in
older regional myths.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Evan Kirshenbaum - 15 Jan 2010 22:28 GMT
>>>>> The Bible's historicity is rather dubious through much of the
>>>>> Old Testament, much of it having been swiped and re-edited from
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> I reckon the exodus myth was needed to justify all the killing
> and genocide that the wandering Hebrews engaged in.

I doubt it.  For one thing, there's about as much evidence for the
killing and genocide as there is for the rest of the story.  This was
all written down after the establishment of the kingdoms.  For
another, I'm not sure that even if the stories are true (as opposed to
post hoc justifications for why this is our land) I'm not sure that
people back then would have felt the need to justify it any more than
they felt the need to justify slavery.  It was just a fact of life.
What needed justification was the refusal to worship other gods.

> The story of Moses being placed in a basket and floated
> downstream comes from similar regional myths, such as the myth
> around Sargon.

I had forgotten about that.  Is there evidence that that Sargon story
is actually older than eighth or ninth century BC?  Clearly, the
stories can flow in both directions.

> Marduk can be linked to the parting of the waters of the Red Sea.

That one I'm not familiar with.

> A lot of other aspects of Exodus can be found in older regional
> myths.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |I value writers such as Fiske.
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |They serve as valuable object
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |lessons by showing that the most
                                      |punctilious compliance with the
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |rules of usage has so little to do
   (650)857-7572                      |with either writing or thinking
                                      |well.
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/        |        --Richard Hershberger

Hatunen - 16 Jan 2010 00:51 GMT
>>>>>> The Bible's historicity is rather dubious through much of the
>>>>>> Old Testament, much of it having been swiped and re-edited from
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>they felt the need to justify slavery.  It was just a fact of life.
>What needed justification was the refusal to worship other gods.

Of course the killing and geocide has turned out to be
fictitious, but if you're going to write a story that includes
such actions by your protagonists, you should probably have a
justification. Even if "God gave us your land" is a pretty poor
justification.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 01:07 GMT
>>> I reckon the exodus myth was needed to justify all the killing
>>> and genocide that the wandering Hebrews engaged in.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> your protagonists, you should probably have a justification. Even if
> "God gave us your land" is a pretty poor justification.

I think that's a relatively modern view that was unlikely to have been
the motivation back then.  Rather, the (likely fictitious) killing has
probably been exaggerated under the notion that "since we could do it,
clearly we were supposed to."

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The reason that we don't have
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |"bear-proof" garbage cans in the
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |park is that there is a significant
                                      |overlap in intelligence between the
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |smartest bears and the dumbest
   (650)857-7572                      |humans.
                                      |             Yosemite Park Ranger
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Steve Hayes - 16 Jan 2010 07:39 GMT
>> Marduk can be linked to the parting of the waters of the Red Sea.
>
>That one I'm not familiar with.

Marduk hacked Tiamat in pieces, making the sky ("firmament") with one half,
and the earth with the other.

Rather as YHWH hacked Rahab in pieces (Isaiah 51:9-11) -- certainly allusions
to the exodus there.

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Evan Kirshenbaum - 16 Jan 2010 17:26 GMT
>>> Marduk can be linked to the parting of the waters of the Red Sea.
>>
>>That one I'm not familiar with.
>
> Marduk hacked Tiamat in pieces, making the sky ("firmament") with
> one half, and the earth with the other.

That seems to be stretching things for an allusion in Exodus.  In
Genesis 1, it would be a better fit, but even that would be pushing it.

> Rather as YHWH hacked Rahab in pieces (Isaiah 51:9-11) -- certainly
> allusions to the exodus there.

Okay, *that's* a Marduk/Tiamat allusion, but again for Genesis, tying
in to Exodus.  And it's written much later, probably near the end of
the Babylonian exile at the beginning of the sixth century BC.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Bullwinkle: You sure that's the
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |            only way?
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |Rocky: Well, if you're going to be
                                      |       a hero, you've got to do
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |       stupid things every once in
   (650)857-7572                      |       a while.

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Steve Hayes - 16 Jan 2010 19:07 GMT
>>>> Marduk can be linked to the parting of the waters of the Red Sea.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>That seems to be stretching things for an allusion in Exodus.  In
>Genesis 1, it would be a better fit, but even that would be pushing it.

True. Genesis takes some of the elements, but gives a different theological
interpretation. I wasn't pushing for you to accept it, just saying who Marduk
was.

>> Rather as YHWH hacked Rahab in pieces (Isaiah 51:9-11) -- certainly
>> allusions to the exodus there.
>
>Okay, *that's* a Marduk/Tiamat allusion, but again for Genesis, tying
>in to Exodus.  And it's written much later, probably near the end of
>the Babylonian exile at the beginning of the sixth century BC.

Yes, but it does give an idea of how people interpreted these things in
different periods.

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Robert Bannister - 14 Jan 2010 01:09 GMT
>>>> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism.
>> <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> "Yeah, you can get to hominids by purely natural means, but it takes a
> god to turn them into people."

So when's He going to start?

Signature

Rob Bannister

Chuck Riggs - 14 Jan 2010 15:10 GMT
>>>>> The most common cop-out I'm aware of is to proclaim agnosticism.
>>> <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>So when's He going to start?

Man evolved the way he did because that is the way he evolved. An
infinite number of possibilities existed, but it is hardly strange
that, no matter how complex, life is the way it is because that is how
it evolved. That is one of the points Richard Dawkins makes in his
series of books that explain the complexity of life and of man far
better than I just did.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Skitt - 09 Jan 2010 18:27 GMT

> Real-world power is certainly a challenge to Christians (or anyone
> else, for that matter). My interests tend to be quite broad, and
> religion, being a very broad and ancient phenomena, is one of them.

A phenomena?  Oy!

Signature

Skitt (Follower of the FOTIPU)
"The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic
and faith.  We have faith that they are pink; we logically know
that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley

Cheryl - 09 Jan 2010 23:33 GMT
>> Real-world power is certainly a challenge to Christians (or anyone
>> else, for that matter). My interests tend to be quite broad, and
>> religion, being a very broad and ancient phenomena, is one of them.
>
> A phenomena?  Oy!

Sorry - I do know better.

a phenomenon

Signature

Cheryl

R H Draney - 10 Jan 2010 03:58 GMT
Cheryl filted:

>>> Real-world power is certainly a challenge to Christians (or anyone
>>> else, for that matter). My interests tend to be quite broad, and
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>a phenomenon

Just know that you brought this on yourself:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5Mc55P1i9g

....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Evan Kirshenbaum - 10 Jan 2010 16:47 GMT
> Cheryl filted:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5Mc55P1i9g

I have the same problem every time I see signs leading to
Mt. Umunhum.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Umunhum

But usually I'm the only one who can see them.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Ye knowe ek, that in forme of speche
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |   is chaunge
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |Withinne a thousand yer, and wordes
                                      |   tho
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |That hadden prys now wonder nyce and
   (650)857-7572                      |   straunge
                                      |Us thenketh hem, and yet they spake
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/        |   hem so
                                      |                    Chaucer

Pat Durkin - 10 Jan 2010 18:43 GMT
>> Cheryl filted:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> But usually I'm the only one who can see them.

Well, it does sound like something from Gulliver's Travels.  (and
sound suspiciously like "no see-ums".  But it is wonderfully
onomatopoeic.

For my part, I found myself at one point unable to name a place
properly, and instead called it Rount Mushmore, repeatedly.
Skitt - 10 Jan 2010 19:24 GMT
>> Cheryl filted:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> But usually I'm the only one who can see them.

Ah, yes -- back in the early 'fifties I used a road that crossed Mt.
Umunhum.  It was quite the trip, but fun.
Signature

Skitt
Seen it all, done it all.
Can't remember most of it.

Redshade - 10 Jan 2010 00:11 GMT
> > Real-world power is certainly a challenge to Christians (or anyone
> > else, for that matter). My interests tend to be quite broad, and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> and faith.  We have faith that they are pink; we logically know
> that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley

And so it came to pass that the Pink Unicorn was the prophet of the
Purple Spaghetti Monster.
R H Draney - 08 Jan 2010 17:39 GMT
Cheryl filted:

>Then again, Anglicans in my experience (and probably Episcopalians as
>well) can and do disagree among themselves on a wide range of topics.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>right when the Roman Catholics and Protestants didn't' sense, but
>actually Roman Catholic.

I wonder when he's going to realize that Christianity in general is a Jewish
splinter group....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Peter Moylan - 09 Jan 2010 13:04 GMT
> I even knew of one - a convert, yet, who I'd have thought would have
> made a study of the subject when converting - who tried to tell me that
> Episcopalians/Anglicans were Roman Catholic. Not 'catholic' in the
> broader sense, not 'Catholic' or 'Anglo-Catholic' in the 'we got it
> right when the Roman Catholics and Protestants didn't' sense, but
> actually Roman Catholic.

Henry, when he created the Anglican Catholic Church, was quite clear
about the fact that his church was still a branch of the Roman Catholic
Church. The only change was that he rejected the authority of the Pope.
He wasn't creating a new religion.

In later years the Anglican Church split into "high church" and "low
church" factions. The high church part was, for all practical purposes,
identical to the Catholic Church. There was a dispute over the Pope's
ability to issue "ex cathedra" pronouncements, but that was the only
important doctrinal difference.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Cheryl - 09 Jan 2010 23:29 GMT
>> I even knew of one - a convert, yet, who I'd have thought would have
>> made a study of the subject when converting - who tried to tell me that
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> ability to issue "ex cathedra" pronouncements, but that was the only
> important doctrinal difference.

Well, yes, but I was always under the assumption that if you didn't
recognize the Pope's authority as head of the Church, you weren't a
Roman Catholic - and even the most ardent high church people wouldn't
have gone so far as to do that, even though theologically a lot of them
were probably extremely close to Roman Catholicism.

I knew about Henry - he always seems to have been a man who wanted to
have his cake and eat it too, and he certainly appeared to consider
himself a devout Roman Catholic who didn't obey the Pope. But I thought
that by the time the church in England had struggled through the reigns
of Edward, Mary and finally Elizabeth, it most definitely wasn't Roman
Catholic. Not even the high church bits, when they eventually developed.

Of course, you also get those who trace the history of the church in
England right past the 'angels not Angles' saint who sent out the
missionaries to the period before the Roman Empire, sometimes adding on
the very early Irish Christians as well. This rather neatly disposes of
Henry's approach to the issue by having a church that pre-dated the
expansion of Roman influence.

Signature

Cheryl

Chuck Riggs - 10 Jan 2010 13:56 GMT
>>> I even knew of one - a convert, yet, who I'd have thought would have
>>> made a study of the subject when converting - who tried to tell me that
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>I knew about Henry - he always seems to have been a man who wanted to
>have his cake and eat it too,...

Anne Boleyn's a cake?
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

John Varela - 10 Jan 2010 03:17 GMT
> Henry, when he created the Anglican Catholic Church, was quite clear
> about the fact that his church was still a branch of the Roman Catholic
> Church. The only change was that he rejected the authority of the Pope.
> He wasn't creating a new religion.

I don't think that's accurate: Catholic, yes, Roman, no.

> In later years the Anglican Church split into "high church" and "low
> church" factions. The high church part was, for all practical purposes,
> identical to the Catholic Church. There was a dispute over the Pope's
> ability to issue "ex cathedra" pronouncements, but that was the only
> important doctrinal difference.

I attended an extremely high church Episcopal boarding school,
graduating in 1953. We literally attended church every day and twice
on Sunday, with Sunday morning service a solemn high sung mass. The
mass was, except for being in English and a few parts in different
sequence, the same as the RC mass. In addition to rejecting the
primacy of the Pope, we were taught that there were doctrinal
differences. Immaculate conception, for one. If I think about it I
can probably come up with others. No account was given to
post-Reformation RC saints or councils. We did not pray to saints
for intercessions.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Chuck Riggs - 09 Jan 2010 14:12 GMT
<snip>

>> The Episcopalian sermons and Sunday school sessions I attended fifty
>> years ago taught me that church services are held on Sunday to
>> coincide with the metaphorical day of the week God rested, after
>> creating the universe.

<snip>

>I got the other explanation,
>involving the resurrection.
>
>Then again, Anglicans in my experience (and probably Episcopalians as
>well) can and do disagree among themselves on a wide range of topics.

<snip>

You're certainly right, there. It was, and is, what I most admire
about the Episcopalian Church. They are probably the most open-minded,
and liberal, of the Protestant sects in America.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Chuck Riggs - 07 Jan 2010 14:15 GMT
<snip>

>I'm curious, though, do Christians (Seventh-Day Adventists excepted)
>really think of Sunday as the sabbath described in the Genesis story?

Strict ones do, I believe, but even as an Episcopalian, a liberal
Christian sect, I was taught this.

>That would be hard to reconcile with the gospels, which had Jesus
>crucified on Friday because it had to be finished before the sabbath
>and the women finding him missing on Sunday morning, after the sabbath
>was over.

I think most Christians take the gospels for gospel without worrying
about the details.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Nick - 10 Jan 2010 11:40 GMT
> I'm curious, though, do Christians (Seventh-Day Adventists excepted)
> really think of Sunday as the sabbath described in the Genesis story?
> That would be hard to reconcile with the gospels, which had Jesus
> crucified on Friday because it had to be finished before the sabbath
> and the women finding him missing on Sunday morning, after the sabbath
> was over.

Being brought up in a wet-and-wooly CofE tradition I certainly mentally
conflated "on the seventh day he rested" and "Sunday, the day of rest".
I'm not saying I was taught this.
Signature

Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

Cheryl - 10 Jan 2010 12:06 GMT
>> I'm curious, though, do Christians (Seventh-Day Adventists excepted)
>> really think of Sunday as the sabbath described in the Genesis story?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> conflated "on the seventh day he rested" and "Sunday, the day of rest".
> I'm not saying I was taught this.

People pick up all kinds of weird ideas in childhood. In the church I
was taken to as a child (Anglican, sort of middle-of-the-road for the
time and place), there was a very large and elaborate chair near the
altar that no one ever sat in, and for a time I was convinced that God
sat there (invisibly, of course).

We only had a visit from the Bishop when we had enough people wanting to
be confirmed to make the trip worthwhile, about once every three years,
and I don't think I ever attended a confirmation service until my own,
so it's not as though I had any evidence to the contrary about the
purpose of the chair.

Some people say that they were encouraged not to question things during
their youthful experiences with religion. Given the kinds of ideas I
came up with on my own, it's fortunate that my own parents encouraged
questions.
Signature

Cheryl

Robin Bignall - 10 Jan 2010 21:34 GMT
>>> I'm curious, though, do Christians (Seventh-Day Adventists excepted)
>>> really think of Sunday as the sabbath described in the Genesis story?
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>came up with on my own, it's fortunate that my own parents encouraged
>questions.

Isn't it a theory of most aggressive religions that if you catch 'em
young enough you've got 'em for life.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Cheryl - 10 Jan 2010 21:49 GMT
> Isn't it a theory of most aggressive religions that if you catch 'em
> young enough you've got 'em for life.

Religions, education theories, even political movements with their youth
branches ... almost anyone who wants to teach something that will stay
with the student, or make the most of the best period for learning a
particular skill, or to see their party program continue to the next
generation wants to start with children or youth.

But I think the most common application of the idea to religion is
attributed to the Jesuits, something about giving them a child for the
first seven years.

That's about right to teach the child the basics of family and social
life and a great period to teach new languages, if not to start them
envelope-stuffing or carrying rifles for the Cause. I think they need to
be a bit more physically mature for ballet and sport, but if they're a
prodigy, they can certainly start their musical education at 0-7. Some
people start pre-natally - wasn't there a fad for playing Bach to the
child in the uterus or something?

Signature

Cheryl

Robert Bannister - 11 Jan 2010 01:43 GMT
> People pick up all kinds of weird ideas in childhood. In the church I
> was taken to as a child (Anglican, sort of middle-of-the-road for the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> so it's not as though I had any evidence to the contrary about the
> purpose of the chair.

I had been told it was "the bishop's chair", but on the two or three
occasions the bishop visited, he didn't sit down, so I wasn't convinced.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Peter Moylan - 11 Jan 2010 14:02 GMT
> We only had a visit from the Bishop when we had enough people wanting to
> be confirmed to make the trip worthwhile, about once every three years,
> and I don't think I ever attended a confirmation service until my own,
> so it's not as though I had any evidence to the contrary about the
> purpose of the chair.

When I went through my (Catholic) confirmation I kept my fingers firmly
crossed, and I kept repeating to myself "Promises made under duress are
not legally binding."

There have been no studies, to the best of my knowledge, of the
proportion of children who were confirmed but who were opposed to the
confirmation ceremony. To my mind, that's just as important as a study
of how many votes in the Zimbabwean elections were freely cast.
An important factor, I suppose, is the age of the voters. Most likely
the 12-year-olds didn't even get a vote in Zimbabwe.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Cheryl - 11 Jan 2010 14:18 GMT
>> We only had a visit from the Bishop when we had enough people wanting to
>> be confirmed to make the trip worthwhile, about once every three years,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> An important factor, I suppose, is the age of the voters. Most likely
> the 12-year-olds didn't even get a vote in Zimbabwe.

My parents gave me a choice. I don't think anyone in my group was
opposed to being confirmed, although I suspect for a lot of them the
process was merely Something You Did at a particular age, rather than
anything particularly religious - something like getting a drivers'
license, or for that matter, having a church wedding when neither they
nor the prospective bride or groom has set foot in a church since their
confirmation. If then.

Actually, the one social obligation I was forced to undergo was our high
school prom. I swore I'd never go to another, but eventually work
responsibilities led me to put in at least a token appearance at others.
And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later puzzlement
that people with no apparent religious affiliation wanting not merely a
religious wedding ceremony, but one that comes with all the associated
dresses and parties. Really, when people of my generation were getting
married, they did so with far less fuss. I must be becoming an old fogey.

(Of course, I'm not including things I was forced to do that I later
thought were either trivial or even a good idea, like going to school,
doing my homework before watching TV, not watching TV late at night or
if a program my parents thought was too violent was on and so on and so
forth.)

Signature

Cheryl

Skitt - 11 Jan 2010 19:45 GMT
>> There have been no studies, to the best of my knowledge, of the
>> proportion of children who were confirmed but who were opposed to the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> nor the prospective bride or groom has set foot in a church since
> their confirmation. If then.

For me, in my early childhood, there was no choice to be made.  My parents
did not attend church, nor did they conduct any religious rituals (like
prayer or saying grace at meals) in our home. When my grandmother came to
visit us from for a month or so, she took me for show-and-tell drop-ins
during church services of the major denominations present in Latvia.  I
liked the Russian Orthodox services for their music (singing).  Any
involvement with religion in my later life has been purely for the pleasure
of others.

Signature

Skitt
There's nothing wrong with religion
until you start taking it seriously.

Robert Bannister - 12 Jan 2010 00:49 GMT
> Actu
> And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later puzzlement
> that people with no apparent religious affiliation wanting not merely a
> religious wedding ceremony, but one that comes with all the associated
> dresses and parties. Really, when people of my generation were getting
> married, they did so with far less fuss. I must be becoming an old fogey.

I can understand people wanting to get married in an attractive,
historic building and that the bride should wear a pretty frock. What I
don't get is why, at a time when a couple are entering into an expensive
partnership, they want to blow anything up to $100 000 on the show.

Signature

Rob Bannister

tony cooper - 12 Jan 2010 03:04 GMT
>> Actu
>> And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later puzzlement
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>don't get is why, at a time when a couple are entering into an expensive
>partnership, they want to blow anything up to $100 000 on the show.

They are often blowing up to $100,000 of their *parent's* money.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Evan Kirshenbaum - 12 Jan 2010 06:32 GMT
>>I can understand people wanting to get married in an attractive,
>>historic building and that the bride should wear a pretty
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> They are often blowing up to $100,000 of their *parent's* money.

Are there many marrying couples that have a single (joint) parent?

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |If the human brain were so simple
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |That we could understand it,
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |We would be so simple
                                      |That we couldn't.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

tony cooper - 12 Jan 2010 06:49 GMT
>>>I can understand people wanting to get married in an attractive,
>>>historic building and that the bride should wear a pretty
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Are there many marrying couples that have a single (joint) parent?

Sure.  You've heard of divorce and one or the other ponying up?

That's a weasel, though.  I misplaced the apostrophe.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Evan Kirshenbaum - 12 Jan 2010 07:07 GMT
>>>>I can understand people wanting to get married in an attractive,
>>>>historic building and that the bride should wear a pretty
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> That's a weasel, though.  I misplaced the apostrophe.

I figured.  But taking it at face value, I couldn't get a plausible
reading for "their parent" other than a person who's a parent of both
the bride and groom[1].  If "they" refers to one of the people
marrying (as opposed to "a couple"), it's fine, of course.

[1] Or bride and bride or groom and groom.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |"Are you okay?"
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |"I'm made of felt....Add by dose
                                      |cubs off."
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Cheryl - 12 Jan 2010 12:42 GMT
>>> Actu
>>> And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later puzzlement
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> They are often blowing up to $100,000 of their *parent's* money.

I've known of couples who spent the money of parents who were also doing
home renovations, and who went to parents B saying parents A are giving
us $x,000; what will you give us? (Parents B said 'no cash'.) And this
isn't among people whose cultural customs require children to be
provided with houses and vast sums of money upon marriage.

To be fair, I do know young couples, well, at least one, who budgeted
and paid for their formal wedding themselves.

Signature

Cheryl

tony cooper - 12 Jan 2010 13:56 GMT
>>>> Actu
>>>> And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later puzzlement
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>To be fair, I do know young couples, well, at least one, who budgeted
>and paid for their formal wedding themselves.

When my daughter announced that she was getting married, I gave the
couple a sum of money to do with as they saw fit.  The money could all
go to the wedding, or they could spend part of it on the wedding and
use the rest towards buying a house.

They had a formal wedding and a large reception, but not a lavish do.
Overall, I thought they budgeted quite wisely.  

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Robert Bannister - 13 Jan 2010 01:21 GMT
>>>> Actu
>>>> And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> To be fair, I do know young couples, well, at least one, who budgeted
> and paid for their formal wedding themselves.

That's why I left it open as to who was doing the paying. With people
not marrying until they're well into their 30s and have well-paid jobs,
many are paying themselves, although I suppose the really lavish
weddings are still put on by one or both sets of parents - sometimes
against the wishes of the couple - more in an act of outdoing the
Joneses than for any practical reason.

Signature

Rob Bannister

John Varela - 13 Jan 2010 20:36 GMT
> That's why I left it open as to who was doing the paying. With people
> not marrying until they're well into their 30s and have well-paid jobs,
> many are paying themselves, although I suppose the really lavish
> weddings are still put on by one or both sets of parents - sometimes
> against the wishes of the couple - more in an act of outdoing the
> Joneses than for any practical reason.

And a way of entertaining clients and getting names into the papers
for free.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Robert Bannister - 13 Jan 2010 01:17 GMT
>>> Actu
>>> And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later puzzlement
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> They are often blowing up to $100,000 of their *parent's* money.

If only young people could realise early on that they need to keep their
parents happy enough to part with the dosh.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Cheryl - 12 Jan 2010 12:38 GMT
>> Actu
>> And my ardent hatred of the prom may have influenced my later
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> don't get is why, at a time when a couple are entering into an expensive
> partnership, they want to blow anything up to $100 000 on the show.

An attractive historic building *with parking*, which was the reason for
one young couple's considering one old church!

I'd pay $100,000 (if I had it) to avoid being the central character in a
big formal do, and stare in bafflement at the social customs of young
people today. They live together, buy a home together, maybe have
children together, and then decide to not only get married, but to do so
in a style Liz Taylor would probably find slightly excessive. Some of
them are still paying off student loans. Until I had friends whose
children started marrying, I had no idea how much money you can spend on
dresses, catered dinners, chocolate fountains, photography, etc.

Signature

Cheryl

Steve Hayes - 12 Jan 2010 16:29 GMT
>I'd pay $100,000 (if I had it) to avoid being the central character in a
>big formal do, and stare in bafflement at the social customs of young
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>children started marrying, I had no idea how much money you can spend on
>dresses, catered dinners, chocolate fountains, photography, etc.

We got married on the cheap. My wife (then to be) made a cake. We bought a few
bottles of wine (which my father-in-law insisted on reimbursing us for) and
that was about it. My wife made her own dress, and a sort of matching shirt
for me. I think it's in the wardrobe somewhere, but it doesn't fit me any
more.

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Skitt - 12 Jan 2010 19:15 GMT
>> I'd pay $100,000 (if I had it) to avoid being the central character
>> in a big formal do, and stare in bafflement at the social customs of
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> dress, and a sort of matching shirt for me. I think it's in the
> wardrobe somewhere, but it doesn't fit me any more.

My first marriage took place in the Carson City courthouse, my second in the
Reno courthouse, and the third and present one (I finally got it right) in a
tiny chapel in Stateline, on the Nevada side.  That last one was the only
one that had some guests, and they were treated to a dinner reception that
cost us less than  500 dollars.  Cheap?  You bet.
Signature

Skitt (AmE)
hates big to-dos.

Hatunen - 12 Jan 2010 19:34 GMT
>My first marriage took place in the Carson City courthouse, my second in the
>Reno courthouse, and the third and present one (I finally got it right) in a
>tiny chapel in Stateline, on the Nevada side.  That last one was the only
>one that had some guests, and they were treated to a dinner reception that
>cost us less than  500 dollars.  Cheap?  You bet.

My wife and I are both in theater, or were, anyway. We were
living together and held a closing night BYOB cast and crew party
at our townhouse for a play she had been stage managing. About
midnight I announced that the entertainment would now begin and
that she and I wer getting married. We had the local Unitarian
minister at the party (he and I happened to be old schoolmates
although we hadn't known each other well), we shanghaied a coupld
of gue2sts to be best man and matron of honor, and got married.
We had bought a sheet cake and served it as the party coninued.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

LFS - 12 Jan 2010 21:12 GMT
>> My first marriage took place in the Carson City courthouse, my second in the
>> Reno courthouse, and the third and present one (I finally got it right) in a
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> of gue2sts to be best man and matron of honor, and got married.
> We had bought a sheet cake and served it as the party coninued.

What is a sheet cake? The mind boggles...

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 12 Jan 2010 21:35 GMT
>>> My first marriage took place in the Carson City courthouse, my second in the
>>> Reno courthouse, and the third and present one (I finally got it right) in a
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>What is a sheet cake? The mind boggles...

Sadly it may not be what your mind is cooking up.
A sheet cake seems to be similar to a slab cake, rectangular and fairly
shallow:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=sheet+cakes&gbv=2&aq=0&oq=sh
eet+cake


http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=slab+cake&btnG=Search+Images
&gbv=2&aq=f&oq
=

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

John Varela - 13 Jan 2010 20:41 GMT
> >What is a sheet cake? The mind boggles...
>
> Sadly it may not be what your mind is cooking up.
> A sheet cake seems to be similar to a slab cake, rectangular and fairly
> shallow:

Typically bought at a supermarket bakery and serves 40 or 50. It's
the sort of thing that's brought into the office for someone's
birthday.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Garrett Wollman - 13 Jan 2010 23:45 GMT
>>What is a sheet cake? The mind boggles...
>
>Sadly it may not be what your mind is cooking up.
>A sheet cake seems to be similar to a slab cake, rectangular and fairly
>shallow:

A sheet cake is a cake baked on a sheet pan (which, despite the
generic name, refers to a specific size and shape of pan).  Most home
ovens are too small to fit a sheet pan, so most home bakers would use
a half-sheet pan.  There are also quarter-sheet pans, but unless you
need to bake something rectangular of exactly that size, there's no
reason to buy them.  (Quarter-sheet pans, for some reason, are
actually *more expensive* than half-sheet pans, despite having less
than half the aluminum.  Must be economies of scale or something.)

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

Cheryl - 12 Jan 2010 21:37 GMT
>>> My first marriage took place in the Carson City courthouse, my second
>>> in the Reno courthouse, and the third and present one (I finally got
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> What is a sheet cake? The mind boggles...

A flat cake - one layer.

Those weddings are at about the level of formality observed in my family
in my generation, and also for my parents'.

Signature

Cheryl

R H Draney - 12 Jan 2010 21:45 GMT
Cheryl filted:

>>> We had bought a sheet cake and served it as the party coninued.
>>
>> What is a sheet cake? The mind boggles...
>
>A flat cake - one layer.

An episode of "A Way With Words" last October featured a caller who wanted to
know why a dessert she grew up with in Texas was called a "sheath cake"....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

franzi - 13 Jan 2010 00:51 GMT
> Cheryl filted:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> An episode of "A Way With Words" last October featured a caller who wanted to
> know why a dessert she grew up with in Texas was called a "sheath cake"....r

Too many preservatives in the recipe, perhaps?
--
franzi
Robin Bignall - 13 Jan 2010 22:33 GMT
>>> I'd pay $100,000 (if I had it) to avoid being the central character
>>> in a big formal do, and stare in bafflement at the social customs of
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>one that had some guests, and they were treated to a dinner reception that
>cost us less than  500 dollars.  Cheap?  You bet.

Five hundred dollars? A veritable fortune.  My first marriage took
place in the Chelsea Register Ooffice, with our parents and half a
dozen friends.  A couple of drinks in a pub after.  My second was in
the Ealing Register Office.  Just the best man and his wife attended,
lunch in a Greek restaurant after.

Total cost of both was probably less than $500.  My first wife, a
fashion student at the Royal College of Art, made her own dress.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

tony cooper - 14 Jan 2010 17:20 GMT
>Five hundred dollars? A veritable fortune.  My first marriage took
>place in the Chelsea Register Ooffice, with our parents and half a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Total cost of both was probably less than $500.  My first wife, a
>fashion student at the Royal College of Art, made her own dress.

Our 1964 wedding expenditures were around $300 plus something under
$100 for the wedding dress. The veil was a family heirloom. Formal
Catholic church wedding and reception in a hall.  Most of the food
served at the reception was purchased, but some family members brought
some things.  Beer and wine was furnished at the reception, but -
again - some family members brought in some extra beer.
Irish/Catholic, you know.  

The flowers and the wedding cake were purchased at substantial
discount from KofC drinking buddies of my wife's brothers.  

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/1964-10-018.jpg

My wife had originally ordered a wedding dress similar to what was
worn by Princess Margaret in 1960, but changed her mind.  Her deposit
was non-refundable, so she told the shop that the wedding had been
called off because the groom backed out.  You have to know my wife to
understand how bothered she was by this kind of deceit.  You have to
know our finances at the time to know why she was willing to be
deceitful.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Skitt - 14 Jan 2010 18:37 GMT

>> Five hundred dollars? A veritable fortune.  My first marriage took
>> place in the Chelsea Register Ooffice, with our parents and half a
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/1964-10-018.jpg

You've changed!

<snip>
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

tony cooper - 14 Jan 2010 22:44 GMT
>>> Five hundred dollars? A veritable fortune.  My first marriage took
>>> place in the Chelsea Register Ooffice, with our parents and half a
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>You've changed!

Our appearance is hair today and gone tomorrow.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Garrett Wollman - 12 Jan 2010 17:07 GMT
>I'd pay $100,000 (if I had it) to avoid being the central character in a
>big formal do, and stare in bafflement at the social customs of young
>people today. They live together, buy a home together, maybe have
>children together, and then decide to not only get married, but to do so
>in a style Liz Taylor would probably find slightly excessive.

    "A timely marriage": one made before your children start
    nagging you about it.
        - Diane Duane

None of the people I know who've gotten married recently (i.e., in the
last decade) did anything remotely lavish.  Traditional, yes, but not
the sort of thing that would get them a write-up in the /Times/.

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

Skitt - 11 Jan 2010 19:28 GMT
> When I went through my (Catholic) confirmation I kept my fingers
> firmly crossed, and I kept repeating to myself "Promises made under
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> An important factor, I suppose, is the age of the voters. Most likely
> the 12-year-olds didn't even get a vote in Zimbabwe.

I was confirmed in the Lutheran church a short time after my arrival in the
USA.  I was sixteen at the time.  Being a non-believer, I saw no harm in
participating in the ceremony.  I did it to not dissapoint the people (YMCA
officials) who made our family's entry in the USA possible.  There have been
times when I have joined my wife for church services in order to please her.
No harm done, just time wasted on repetitious proceedings that have
absolutely no effect on me.

Signature

Skitt (Follower of the FOTIPU)
"The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic
and faith.  We have faith that they are pink; we logically know
that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley

Jonathan Morton - 06 Jan 2010 15:05 GMT
>>Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen
>>starts the week on a Sunday.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> exceptions, usually designed for other markets and thoughtlessly
> imported.

I see both. But, as the OP observed, the advantage of Sunday first is that
the middle of the working week is the middle of the calendar also.

Outlook 2003 and earlier had Sat/Sun as (in effect) one day. I rather liked
that. Outlook 2007 has been improved so that Thursday appears to be way
before the weekend.

Regards

Jonathan
Mike Barnes - 06 Jan 2010 16:17 GMT
Jonathan Morton <jonathan.mortonbutignorethispart@btinternet.com>:

>>>Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen
>>>starts the week on a Sunday.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>I see both. But, as the OP observed, the advantage of Sunday first is that
>the middle of the working week is the middle of the calendar also.

I think she used that as an example without claiming any particular
advantage. It's hardly an advantage over the start of the working week
being at the start of the calendar week. And both pale into
insignificance compared with advantage of the calendar days being where
you expect them to be.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Cheryl - 06 Jan 2010 16:30 GMT
> Jonathan Morton <jonathan.mortonbutignorethispart@btinternet.com>:
>>>> Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> insignificance compared with advantage of the calendar days being where
> you expect them to be.

I wasn't thinking that it was an advantage to everyone to have Wednesday
in the middle and Sunday on the left where it belongs. That's an
advantage to me personally, because I expect to find Wednesday in the
middle, and as I have discovered, don't actually read the word on the
top of the column to see if it says 'Wednesday'. I can quite see that a
calendar with my preferred arrangement would cause a disadvantage to
someone used to both weekend days at one end, instead of one at each
end; or days of the week at the side. I looked at that one, and decided
it looked really odd to me.

It's mildly interesting to discover how much habit affects the use of
one of the commonest time-telling objects, like a calendar, and how many
versions there are that *don't* use the 'obvious' arrangement. Clocks,
in spite of the 12/24 options and the digital/analogue issue don't seem
to provide as varied options.

Signature

Cheryl

Mike Barnes - 06 Jan 2010 18:12 GMT
Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>:
>It's mildly interesting to discover how much habit affects the use of
>one of the commonest time-telling objects, like a calendar, and how
>many versions there are that *don't* use the 'obvious' arrangement.
>Clocks, in spite of the 12/24 options and the digital/analogue issue
>don't seem to provide as varied options.

http://www.designboom.com/contemporary/timepieces/09.jpg
http://www.eatnineghost.com/wp-content/uploads/unusual-watch/watch02.jpg
http://www.funis2cool.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/unusual-citizen-watches-01.jpg
http://www.designboom.com/contemporary/timepieces/06.jpg
http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/eleeno_cyber_lcd_watch.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7H17kbwrqqc/R0W125_mftI/AAAAAAAAAyI/5arutnaEafQ/s320/e
quilibrium-watch-250-projects-us.JPG

http://c0378172.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/11403_70409100519.jpg

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Cheryl - 07 Jan 2010 12:13 GMT
> Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>:
>> It's mildly interesting to discover how much habit affects the use of
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7H17kbwrqqc/R0W125_mftI/AAAAAAAAAyI/5arutnaEafQ/s320/e
quilibrium-watch-250-projects-us.JPG

> http://c0378172.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/11403_70409100519.jpg

I am sincerely glad I didn't have to learn to tell time using some of those.

Signature

Cheryl

HVS - 07 Jan 2010 12:15 GMT
On 07 Jan 2010, Cheryl wrote

>> Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>:
>>> It's mildly interesting to discover how much habit affects the
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> I am sincerely glad I didn't have to learn to tell time using
> some of those.

All of them are excellent examples of the triumph of form over
function.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Evan Kirshenbaum - 07 Jan 2010 17:37 GMT
> On 07 Jan 2010, Cheryl wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> All of them are excellent examples of the triumph of form over
> function.

I've got a BCD clock on my desk at work (a present from my
mother-in-law).  I can read it right off, but it's amazing how many
people with computer science PhDs who stop by have trouble figuring it
out.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |And the wildest dreams of Kew
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |  are the facts of Khatmandhu,
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |And the crimes of Clapham
                                      |  chaste in Martaban.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |
   (650)857-7572                      |          Rudyard Kipling

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 13:54 GMT
>> On 07 Jan 2010, Cheryl wrote
>>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>people with computer science PhDs who stop by have trouble figuring it
>out.

Show-off.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Peter Moylan - 09 Jan 2010 13:10 GMT
> I've got a BCD clock on my desk at work (a present from my
> mother-in-law).  I can read it right off, but it's amazing how many
> people with computer science PhDs who stop by have trouble figuring it
> out.

Because it's a 24hr clock? As this thread has demonstrated, most people
have no difficulty in understanding that.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Evan Kirshenbaum - 09 Jan 2010 17:36 GMT
>> I've got a BCD clock on my desk at work (a present from my
>> mother-in-law).  I can read it right off, but it's amazing how many
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Because it's a 24hr clock? As this thread has demonstrated, most
> people have no difficulty in understanding that.

No, I leave it in 12-hour mode.  (There's a switch on the back.)

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The body was wrapped in duct tape,
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |weighted down with concrete blocks
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |and a telephone cord was tied
                                      |around the neck. Police suspect
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |foul play...
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

annily - 09 Jan 2010 23:09 GMT
>>> I've got a BCD clock on my desk at work (a present from my
>>> mother-in-law).  I can read it right off, but it's amazing how many
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> No, I leave it in 12-hour mode.  (There's a switch on the back.)

That's probably why they have trouble figuring it out. They don't know
which part of the day it is :)

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

Jonathan Morton - 06 Jan 2010 19:25 GMT
> It's mildly interesting to discover how much habit affects the use of one
> of the commonest time-telling objects, like a calendar, and how many
> versions there are that *don't* use the 'obvious' arrangement. Clocks, in
> spite of the 12/24 options and the digital/analogue issue don't seem to
> provide as varied options.

No, but the analogue clock is a good example of the phenomenon you
described. I have just glanced at my watch and noticed that it's sort of
half-way between quarter-past and half-past something that's in the bottom
left-hand quadrant of the dial. So in split second, I know exactly what time
it is. You tried to do the same with the calendar.

Regards

Jonathan
Prai Jei - 06 Jan 2010 20:37 GMT
Jonathan Morton set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

> No, but the analogue clock is a good example of the phenomenon you
> described. I have just glanced at my watch and noticed that it's sort of
> half-way between quarter-past and half-past something that's in the bottom
> left-hand quadrant of the dial. So in split second, I know exactly what
> time it is. You tried to do the same with the calendar.

I have encountered an extreme example of knowing things by position rather
than name/number. I could not remember a customer's phone number despite
having called them many times over the past few days. It turned out what I
had remembered was not the sequence of digits, but the sequence of finger
movements required to dial it. Only by tapping the number out on an
imaginary keyboard could I translate the number into actual digits for
somebody else to key in on a mobile.
Signature

ξ:) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

Bertel Lund Hansen - 06 Jan 2010 23:24 GMT
Prai Jei skrev:

> I have encountered an extreme example of knowing things by position rather
> than name/number. I could not remember a customer's phone number despite
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> imaginary keyboard could I translate the number into actual digits for
> somebody else to key in on a mobile.

A type of Danish bike lock (not safe enough anymore - picture
here):

http://www.fototime.com/photos/st/1ED5A22E52E84C6EA80967B6BA1791AC/Basta.jpg

has six pins that can be pushed, left untouched or pulled out. It
happened all the time when somebody wanted to borrow a bike, that
the owner had to physically unlock the bike because his fingers
and not his brain remembered the combination.

Signature

Bertel, Denmark

tony cooper - 07 Jan 2010 00:29 GMT
>Prai Jei skrev:
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>the owner had to physically unlock the bike because his fingers
>and not his brain remembered the combination.

My bank offers on-line bill paying.  To get on-line, I have to enter
my seven digit account number.  At least once a week, I access my
account on-line by entering these seven digits.

When I go to the bank to make a transaction, it's not uncommon for me
to not remember this number.  There's something automatic about my
keystrokes that doesn't work when I have to write down the number.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Garrett Wollman - 07 Jan 2010 04:11 GMT
>My bank offers on-line bill paying.  To get on-line, I have to enter
>my seven digit account number.  At least once a week, I access my
>account on-line by entering these seven digits.

My bank ("Too Big To Fail, N.A.") requires the full sixteen-digit ATM
card number.  It takes me about half a dozen uses before I find I have
the new number memorized (and probably a similar number of times after
that before I stop thinking that I need to check the card to be
certain).

-GAWollman
Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

Nick - 10 Jan 2010 13:43 GMT
>>My bank offers on-line bill paying.  To get on-line, I have to enter
>>my seven digit account number.  At least once a week, I access my
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> that before I stop thinking that I need to check the card to be
> certain).

I've found that within a couple of days of me finding that I can type my
work computer password in without thinking about it, the "your password
will expire in nnn days" message first pops up.
Signature

Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

Robert Bannister - 11 Jan 2010 01:46 GMT
>>> My bank offers on-line bill paying.  To get on-line, I have to enter
>>> my seven digit account number.  At least once a week, I access my
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> work computer password in without thinking about it, the "your password
> will expire in nnn days" message first pops up.

AOL. I began using the most obvious passwords because of the monthly
change and even then, I sometimes forgot them.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Robert Bannister - 07 Jan 2010 01:34 GMT
> Jonathan Morton set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> imaginary keyboard could I translate the number into actual digits for
> somebody else to key in on a mobile.

I'm sure the many people here who play musical instruments, or at least
keyboard instruments, would be totally familiar with being only able to
remember tunes with the hands rather than the memory.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Bertel Lund Hansen - 07 Jan 2010 09:25 GMT
Robert Bannister skrev:

> I'm sure the many people here who play musical instruments, or at least
> keyboard instruments, would be totally familiar with being only able to
> remember tunes with the hands rather than the memory.

I have experienced nothing of the sort. I have played since
childhood, first piano but ehn mostly guitar as an adult, and
lately keyboard. I cannot learn a tune that I would not be able
to sing - in fact I am able to sing unisone to my improvisations
on the guitar.

It would really surprise me if anyone could learn a tune without
it first entering his mind independent of his hands. And how
could one forget it afterwards?

Signature

Bertel, Denmark

Evan Kirshenbaum - 07 Jan 2010 16:36 GMT
> Robert Bannister skrev:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> to sing - in fact I am able to sing unisone to my improvisations
> on the guitar.

That's "in unison with".  Assuming that you mean that you sing the
same thing (strictly speaking, in the same octave) as what you play on
the guitar.

> It would really surprise me if anyone could learn a tune without
> it first entering his mind independent of his hands.

I don't think anybody's claiming that.

> And how could one forget it afterwards?

Put me down in Rob's camp, but I suspect that he meant more by "tune".
It's not a matter of not remembering the melody line, but rather not
remembering the specific notes and chords that you play for the full
arrangement.  When I played took piano as a kid, the result of my
practicing would be the ability to play the song without needing
music, but if I had to write down the song or even tell you what
chords I was playing (unless it was blues or something else very
regular) I would have to actually play it on a keyboard or at least
form the handshapes on the table in front of me.  Thirty years later,
there are still a few (parts of) pieces (e.g., Joplins "Maple Leaf
Rag" and one of Haydn's sonatinas) that my hands remember how to play.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |This case--and I must be careful
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |not to fall into Spooner's trap
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |here--concerns a group of warring
                                      |bankers.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Bertel Lund Hansen - 07 Jan 2010 17:24 GMT
Evan Kirshenbaum skrev:

> Put me down in Rob's camp, but I suspect that he meant more by "tune".
> It's not a matter of not remembering the melody line, but rather not
> remembering the specific notes and chords that you play for the full
> arrangement.

That I can understand.

Signature

Bertel, Denmark

Robert Bannister - 08 Jan 2010 01:33 GMT
> Robert Bannister skrev:
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> it first entering his mind independent of his hands. And how
> could one forget it afterwards?

I too find it difficult to learn a new tune if I can't sing/hum/whistle
it, but when it comes to remembering a tune previously learnt, my hands
are much better at than "I" am.

Signature

Rob Bannister

R H Draney - 08 Jan 2010 04:58 GMT
Robert Bannister filted:

>> Robert Bannister skrev:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>it, but when it comes to remembering a tune previously learnt, my hands
>are much better at than "I" am.

At least one of my guitar books suggested that musicians fall into three
different classes when "internalizing" a piece: there's the motor-tactile group
(yours, apparently), who remember the movements of the hands...then there's the
auditory group (like my old songwriting partner), who can play anything, new or
familiar, so long as they know how it's supposed to sound...and finally the
visual group (that's me!); we picture the printed score in our eidetic memory
and play from that....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 14:13 GMT
<snip>

>At least one of my guitar books suggested that musicians fall into three
>different classes when "internalizing" a piece: there's the motor-tactile group
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>visual group (that's me!); we picture the printed score in our eidetic memory
>and play from that....r

As a chorus and madrigal singer, the class I fell into had to
practice, practice, practice, before I had the tune, timing and rhythm
the way our conductor wanted it. I wouldn't have had the patience and
endurance for such work if other people weren't suffering along with
me, not that there were not rewards once we had a piece of music
right.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Skitt - 08 Jan 2010 18:36 GMT
> Robert Bannister filted:
>>> Robert Bannister skrev:

>>>> I'm sure the many people here who play musical instruments, or at
>>>> least keyboard instruments, would be totally familiar with being
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> group (that's me!); we picture the printed score in our eidetic
> memory and play from that....r

Hmm.  I generally know what the music is supposed to sound like and where
those sounds are on the keyboard.
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Robert Bannister - 09 Jan 2010 00:10 GMT
> Robert Bannister filted:
>>> Robert Bannister skrev:
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> visual group (that's me!); we picture the printed score in our eidetic memory
> and play from that....r

I use the visual method sometimes to remember how a piece starts - I
"see" the first few bars. I also use the auditory method occasionally -
this usually means recalling a particular line somewhere in the middle -
frequently the bit that makes this piece (for me, at least) different
from any other tune. When it comes to the whole thing - the bass, the
twiddly bits, the bells and whistles - I let my hands take over. At my
age, memory needs kick starting.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 13:59 GMT
>> Robert Bannister skrev:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>it, but when it comes to remembering a tune previously learnt, my hands
>are much better at than "I" am.

I know what you mean. Back when I played, my fingers knew tunes, once
I got started, on the violin that I had forgotten.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Peter Moylan - 09 Jan 2010 13:19 GMT
> I'm sure the many people here who play musical instruments, or at least
> keyboard instruments, would be totally familiar with being only able to
> remember tunes with the hands rather than the memory.

I've just come back from a vacation with a fellow choir member. She
remembers the notes. I remember the finger positions on a guitar. We had
a lot of trouble working out what we should sing.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Cheryl - 07 Jan 2010 12:16 GMT
> Jonathan Morton set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> imaginary keyboard could I translate the number into actual digits for
> somebody else to key in on a mobile.

That happens to me a lot, too. I have to use a code on the office
photocopier, and I'm sure that when students ask to photocopy something
they think I am protecting our resources by refusing to trust them with
the Secret Code. In fact, I can't remember it unless I'm standing at the
machine typing it in.

And I have used it almost daily for over five years.

Signature

Cheryl

Skitt - 07 Jan 2010 19:16 GMT
>> I have encountered an extreme example of knowing things by position
>> rather than name/number. I could not remember a customer's phone
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> And I have used it almost daily for over five years.

At my last place of employment I had to enter a numerical code to gain
access to my work building.  All I remembered was the pattern of the buttons
to be pushed, not the numerical identities of them.

Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 07 Jan 2010 19:27 GMT
>>> I have encountered an extreme example of knowing things by position
>>> rather than name/number. I could not remember a customer's phone
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>At my last place of employment I had to enter a numerical code to gain
>access to my work building.  

Ditto.

>All I remembered was the pattern of the buttons
>to be pushed, not the numerical identities of them.

I had to remember my personal numerical code. For security reasons the
digits associated with each key were allocated randomly on pressing a
start key and then displayed so as to be visible only through a narrow
angle. This made it impossible for someone nearby to see what number was
being keyed in.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

tony cooper - 07 Jan 2010 20:31 GMT
>>> I have encountered an extreme example of knowing things by position
>>> rather than name/number. I could not remember a customer's phone
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>access to my work building.  All I remembered was the pattern of the buttons
>to be pushed, not the numerical identities of them.

The "Time of Day" phone number in this area is 407 646 3131.  Before
using the area code on all calls in this area, the number could be
dialed if you could remember to touch the opposites on a touch-tone
phone.  It was also a pattern dialing situation.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

James Silverton - 07 Jan 2010 20:50 GMT
Skitt  wrote  on Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:16:51 -0800:

>>> I have encountered an extreme example of knowing things by
>>> position rather than name/number. I could not remember a
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>>
>> And I have used it almost daily for over five years.

> At my last place of employment I had to enter a numerical code
> to gain access to my work building.  All I remembered was the pattern
> of the buttons to be pushed, not the numerical
> identities of them.

Given my visual decrepitude I have to do that too for the lock box that
contains my emergency house keys.

Signature

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 14:28 GMT
>>> I have encountered an extreme example of knowing things by position
>>> rather than name/number. I could not remember a customer's phone
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>access to my work building.  All I remembered was the pattern of the buttons
>to be pushed, not the numerical identities of them.

Since one or more guards waved us by before we gained access to a
space, my bugbear was having to memorize the combinations for a series
of filing cabinets. No writing them down, either.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Skitt - 08 Jan 2010 18:46 GMT
>> At my last place of employment I had to enter a numerical code to
>> gain access to my work building.  All I remembered was the pattern
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> space, my bugbear was having to memorize the combinations for a series
> of filing cabinets. No writing them down, either.

About that -- aside frome the daily-used code, I had about four other access
codes for some areas I had to visit now and then.  I remembered some of
them, but I wrote the codes (modified by a fixed number known only to me) in
my address book as parts of phone numbers for some fictional persons with
fictional but likely addresses.  I had to consult that address book on
several occasions, but yeah -- I never wrote down the actual codes.
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Chuck Riggs - 09 Jan 2010 14:25 GMT
>>> At my last place of employment I had to enter a numerical code to
>>> gain access to my work building.  All I remembered was the pattern
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>fictional but likely addresses.  I had to consult that address book on
>several occasions, but yeah -- I never wrote down the actual codes.

My office mates and I concocted rhymes to make memorizing the numbers
easier. With a dozen locked cabinets and without writing the
combinations down, I don't know how else it could be done, at least
not by the average person.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Skitt - 09 Jan 2010 18:31 GMT
>>>> At my last place of employment I had to enter a numerical code to
>>>> gain access to my work building.  All I remembered was the pattern
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> combinations down, I don't know how else it could be done, at least
> not by the average person.

In my case, it wouldn't have been so bad if they didn't have to change the
codes every time someone got removed from the authorized access list.
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Chuck Riggs - 10 Jan 2010 14:01 GMT
>>>>> At my last place of employment I had to enter a numerical code to
>>>>> gain access to my work building.  All I remembered was the pattern
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>In my case, it wouldn't have been so bad if they didn't have to change the
>codes every time someone got removed from the authorized access list.

You're right, there. We changed ours periodically and for the case you
mentioned, which for civil servants was probably rarer than in most of
private industry.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Robert Bannister - 08 Jan 2010 01:37 GMT
>> Jonathan Morton set the following eddies spiralling through the
>> space-time
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> And I have used it almost daily for over five years.

For much of my life - previously as a teacher, and now as a sufferer at
the gym - I wrote the date down at least once a day, and yet I had to
think really hard to remember what the date was. It must have been an
unconscious action: place a blackboard or workout chart in front of me,
and the brain switches to "write next date" function; ask me "What's the
date today?" and my brain goes into "Wha'?" mode.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 14:34 GMT
>>> Jonathan Morton set the following eddies spiralling through the
>>> space-time
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>and the brain switches to "write next date" function; ask me "What's the
>date today?" and my brain goes into "Wha'?" mode.

Mobile phones have finally solved the day and date problem for me, or
my watch does.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Bertel Lund Hansen - 06 Jan 2010 23:16 GMT
Jonathan Morton skrev:

> No, but the analogue clock is a good example of the phenomenon you
> described. I have just glanced at my watch and noticed that it's sort of
> half-way between quarter-past and half-past something that's in the bottom
> left-hand quadrant of the dial. So in split second, I know exactly what time
> it is.

This is why I prefer an analog clock display. As a teacher I
needed to look at the clock and know immediately how many minutes
remained of the lesson.

Signature

Bertel, Denmark

annily - 07 Jan 2010 06:00 GMT
> Jonathan Morton skrev:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> needed to look at the clock and know immediately how many minutes
> remained of the lesson.

My brain is more attuned to text and numbers than images, so I prefer
digital clocks.

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

Chuck Riggs - 07 Jan 2010 14:26 GMT
>> Jonathan Morton skrev:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>My brain is more attuned to text and numbers than images, so I prefer
>digital clocks.

If they weren't so tacky I'd like them a lot more.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

annily - 07 Jan 2010 23:09 GMT
>>> Jonathan Morton skrev:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> If they weren't so tacky I'd like them a lot more.

Why do you consider them "tacky"? They look fine to me.

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 14:40 GMT
>>>> Jonathan Morton skrev:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>Why do you consider them "tacky"? They look fine to me.

If not tacky, would you prefer that I called digital clocks and
watches glitzy or glam?
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

annily - 09 Jan 2010 01:16 GMT
>>>>> Jonathan Morton skrev:
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> If not tacky, would you prefer that I called digital clocks and
> watches glitzy or glam?

Not really, although they could be designed that way. I just think of
them as "normal", somewhere between tacky and glitzy.

Signature

Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.

Chuck Riggs - 09 Jan 2010 14:41 GMT
>>>>>> Jonathan Morton skrev:
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>Not really, although they could be designed that way. I just think of
>them as "normal", somewhere between tacky and glitzy.

The designers of the watch I'm wearing now compromised in a way I
rather like. The watch has an analogue dial for the time, with a small
area at the bottom where the day and date are inconspicuously
displayed by an LCD readout. I'd have to wing it for the year were it
not for my pocket diary or my mobile, which remind me it is 2010 when
I forget.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

James Silverton - 09 Jan 2010 15:07 GMT
Chuck  wrote  on Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:41:01 +0000:

>>>>>>> Jonathan Morton skrev:
>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>> think of them as "normal", somewhere between tacky and
>> glitzy.

> The designers of the watch I'm wearing now compromised in a
> way I rather like. The watch has an analogue dial for the
> time, with a small area at the bottom where the day and date
> are inconspicuously displayed by an LCD readout. I'd have to
> wing it for the year were it not for my pocket diary or my
> mobile, which remind me it is 2010 when I forget.

My analog watch has a liquid crystal backing to the lens. This can show,
among other things, day and date, including year. The only real problem
is that the dial is greyish instead of white.
Signature


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Chuck Riggs - 10 Jan 2010 14:12 GMT
> Chuck  wrote  on Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:41:01 +0000:
>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>among other things, day and date, including year. The only real problem
>is that the dial is greyish instead of white.

The hands and numbers on the dial of my el cheapo Casio are a highly
readable white on black and the alphanumerics are an easily read black
on light grey. That display shows the day and date, but not the year.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Robert Bannister - 07 Jan 2010 01:30 GMT
>> Jonathan Morton <jonathan.mortonbutignorethispart@btinternet.com>:
>>>>> Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> end; or days of the week at the side. I looked at that one, and decided
> it looked really odd to me.

For family planning of weekends, having Saturday and Sunday together is
pretty handy if you're one of those people who writes activities on the
calendar. Reading the calendar is a different matter, but it does help
if the weekend days are in a different colour from the workdays.

> It's mildly interesting to discover how much habit affects the use of
> one of the commonest time-telling objects, like a calendar, and how many
> versions there are that *don't* use the 'obvious' arrangement.

"Obvious" and "habit" are obviously only what you are used to, and once
you become exposed to other "obvious" methods, you will be surprised at
how quickly you become adept at reading various formats including days
going vertically instead of in the "proper" way.

 Clocks,
> in spite of the 12/24 options and the digital/analogue issue don't seem
> to provide as varied options.

The main variation I find is that there an increasing number of watches
that I can't read even with my glasses on.
Signature


Rob Bannister

Nick - 11 Jan 2010 18:08 GMT
> For family planning of weekends

Something for the weekend sir?
Signature

Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

Garrett Wollman - 06 Jan 2010 19:22 GMT
>I think she used that as an example without claiming any particular
>advantage. It's hardly an advantage over the start of the working week
>being at the start of the calendar week.

So what do they do in German-speaking countries, where Wednesday is
Mittwoch ("mid-week"), or in Finland (keskiviikko, a calque of the
German)?

-GAWollman
Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

Mike Barnes - 06 Jan 2010 20:15 GMT
Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>:

>>I think she used that as an example without claiming any particular
>>advantage. It's hardly an advantage over the start of the working week
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Mittwoch ("mid-week"), or in Finland (keskiviikko, a calque of the
>German)?

I expected German calendars to run Mo-So, and a quick web search
provides some confirmation.

http://www.stop-in-esslingen.de/attachments/Image/KALENDAR.png
http://enkler.tempw7.internet1.de/dasblog/dasblogce/content/binary/KAlendar.png

I don't imagine for one moment that Mittwoch not being the central
column on a calendar is in any way troublesome.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Ilpo - 07 Jan 2010 13:20 GMT
> >I think she used that as an example without claiming any particular
> >advantage. It's hardly an advantage over the start of the working week
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Mittwoch ("mid-week"), or in Finland (keskiviikko, a calque of the
> German)?
Presumably the Finnish calendar week did start on Sunday in the past,
and hence the name for the day. I wasn't able to confirm that it is a
calque of the German - it may be, but it could be endogenous as well.
But the shift into Monday being the first day took place long enough
ago that I'm not sure if there are many still alive who even remember
a time when it was otherwise. For me the apparent illogicality has
never been an issue; I've always taken it to be the middle of a
workweek.

The biggest practical advantage for me in having the weekend days next
to each other is that you may be travelling somewhere for the weekend
or having visitors etc., and it's easier to read the calendar with the
weekend as one unit. The week splits quite naturally into two parts,
the workdays and the days off, and to me it makes sense to keep these
parts undivided.
John Varela - 06 Jan 2010 20:19 GMT
> >>Yes, I was confused above. Almost every calendar I have ever seen
> >>starts the week on a Sunday.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I see both. But, as the OP observed, the advantage of Sunday first is that
> the middle of the working week is the middle of the calendar also.

In defiance of local custom I have my computer calendar set up with
Sunday as the last day because I want to see the weekend days side
by side.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Nick - 10 Jan 2010 11:37 GMT
> I think that's the North American tradition. In the UK, the weeks starts
> on Monday and calendars generally reflect this. Of course there are
> exceptions, usually designed for other markets and thoughtlessly
> imported.

My latest "Historic Wigan" calendar starts with Sunday - so splits the
weekends.  I doubt that's designed for other markets (although the
software might be).

I've reached a new milestone - pictures taken when I was alive are now
"historic".

On the "days vertical" idea which someone mentioned, my mother used to
organise our family life with a calendar that had 4 weeks to a page,
each week running vertically, and with perforations such that you could
remove each week when it was past, so always having this week and the
next 4 visible.  I think they stopped making them, and she doesn't have
quite the same need these days.
Signature

Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

Prai Jei - 06 Jan 2010 20:33 GMT
Cheryl set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:

> I knew that it is possible to get calendars that vary from Sunday to
> Saturday across the top, but hadn't happened to use them.

Some people are quibbling about "vary" here. No problem - it's like
the "For" statement in computer language like Basic and C:
       For X = 1 To 10
means that X "varies" from 1 to 10 i.e. take each value in turn.

> This one, however, goes from Monday-Sunday,
Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the
week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in
the Gospels, coming the day after Jewish Sabbath (the seventh day of the
previous week).

Monday only begins the week in the world of Mammon, where Sunday is
relegated to the end of the week, frequently scrunched into the same square
as Saturday.

> I would never have thought such a minor change would confuse my reading
> skills to that extent!
It's not a minor change but a total paradigm shift. (Good expression that -
what does it mean?) My advice: scrub that calendar and get a proper one.
You may even be able to get one half price now the year has started.

Alternately if you have an old calendar from 1999 re-use it since the dates
and days of the week will match, though Easter and dates relative to
Easter, won't match.
Signature

ξ:) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

R H Draney - 06 Jan 2010 21:06 GMT
Prai Jei filted:

>Alternately if you have an old calendar from 1999 re-use it since the dates
>and days of the week will match, though Easter and dates relative to
>Easter, won't match.

And if that's a concern to you, put the calendar away and bring it back out in
2021....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Evan Kirshenbaum - 06 Jan 2010 23:00 GMT
> Cheryl set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>         For X = 1 To 10
> means that X "varies" from 1 to 10 i.e. take each value in turn.

And that's the sense she *didn't* mean, right?

>> This one, however, goes from Monday-Sunday,

It normally runs Sunday to Saturday, and this one "varies" by being
different.

> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the
> week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in
> the Gospels, coming the day after Jewish Sabbath (the seventh day of the
> previous week).

I don't recall anywhere in the Gospels that it's called "the most
important day".  It's designated as "the first day of the week" (Matt
28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:19), presumably because that's the
way it would likely have been designated in Aramaic by Jews (and is
today in Hebrew (/jom riSon/)) due to it being the day after the
Sabbath, which is the seventh day.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |It's gotten to the point where the
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |only place you can get work done is
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |at home, because no one bugs you,
                                      |and the best place to entertain
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |yourself is at work, because the
   (650)857-7572                      |Internet connections are faster.
                                      |              Scott Adams
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Prai Jei - 07 Jan 2010 18:58 GMT
Evan Kirshenbaum set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

>> Cheryl set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>> continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> today in Hebrew (/jom riSon/)) due to it being the day after the
> Sabbath, which is the seventh day.

It became the most important day of the week because it was the day of the
week on which Christ rose from the dead.
Signature

ξ:) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

Evan Kirshenbaum - 07 Jan 2010 19:20 GMT
> Evan Kirshenbaum set the following eddies spiralling through the
> space-time continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> It became the most important day of the week because it was the day
> of the week on which Christ rose from the dead.

Oh, sure.  But the claim was that

  it's the most important day and is so designated in the Gospels

and that's what I didn't remember.  I don't even recall it from the
epistles.  I figured it happened sometime after the canonical books
were written.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |ActiveX is pretty harmless anyway.
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |It can't affect you unless you
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |install Windows, and who would be
                                      |foolish enough to do that?
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |            Peter Moylan
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Robert Bannister - 08 Jan 2010 01:42 GMT
>> Evan Kirshenbaum set the following eddies spiralling through the
>> space-time continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> epistles.  I figured it happened sometime after the canonical books
> were written.

Almost certainly at that dreadful meeting at Nokia - sorry, Nikea, when
they made up a whole pile of rules like the date of Christmas.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 07 Jan 2010 19:31 GMT
>Evan Kirshenbaum set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>It became the most important day of the week because it was the day of the
>week on which Christ rose from the dead.

You don't know that! <smile>

Jesus was found to be absent from the tomb on that day. There were no
witnesses who saw him coming back to life and leaving the tomb.
He could have come back to life soon after being entombed.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Skitt - 07 Jan 2010 19:46 GMT
> Prai Jei wrote:
>> Evan Kirshenbaum set the following:
>>> Prai Jei  writes:

>>>> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day
>>>> of the week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> witnesses who saw him coming back to life and leaving the tomb.
> He could have come back to life soon after being entombed.

Don't ask me why, but it made me think of a dingo ...
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Peter Moylan - 09 Jan 2010 14:32 GMT
>> Jesus was found to be absent from the tomb on that day. There were no
>> witnesses who saw him coming back to life and leaving the tomb.
>> He could have come back to life soon after being entombed.
>
> Don't ask me why, but it made me think of a dingo ...

Let's dingo some more, let's dingo some more,
Let's hit the floor like we did before ...

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Chuck Riggs - 10 Jan 2010 14:14 GMT
>>> Jesus was found to be absent from the tomb on that day. There were no
>>> witnesses who saw him coming back to life and leaving the tomb.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Let's dingo some more, let's dingo some more,
>Let's hit the floor like we did before ...

What in the...world?
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

the Omrud - 06 Jan 2010 23:11 GMT
> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the
> week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in
> the Gospels, coming the day after Jewish Sabbath (the seventh day of the
> previous week).

That's probably illegal talk in Ireland these days.

Signature

David

James Hogg - 06 Jan 2010 23:19 GMT
>> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the
>> week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in
>> the Gospels, coming the day after Jewish Sabbath (the seventh day of the
>> previous week).
>
> That's probably illegal talk in Ireland these days.

Some early Christians thought of Sunday as the eighth day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity

Signature

James

Chuck Riggs - 07 Jan 2010 14:44 GMT
>> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the
>> week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in
>> the Gospels, coming the day after Jewish Sabbath (the seventh day of the
>> previous week).
>
>That's probably illegal talk in Ireland these days.

Ah yes, that law. The content is bollocks, but even the length of the
Defamation Act 2009 should make it repealable, IMO. If you're not
easily bored, here it is:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a3109.pdf
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Evan Kirshenbaum - 07 Jan 2010 17:34 GMT
>>> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the
>>> week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a3109.pdf

Well, that's all of "defamation", not merely blasphemy but mostly
libel and slander.  "Publishing or uttering blasphemous matter" is
just sections 36 and 37 on pp. 26-7, reproduced below, and the bulk
(section 37) only has to do with seizing material upon conviction.  I
note that to be actionable, there are two prongs that both need to be
met.

   (2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters
   blasphemous matter if--

       (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly
       abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any
       religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number
       of the adherents of that religion, and

       (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the
       matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

So it has to *intentionally* cause outrage among a substantial number
of adherents to the religion.  Merely having your words taken as
offensive, or even intending to piss off a specific person or small
group wouldn't seem to be covered.

Also,

   (3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this
   section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would
   find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or
   academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

although I note that this doesn't include the American obscenity
notion of "the work *taken as a whole*".

The full sections:

   36.--(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter
   shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on
   indictment to a fine not exceeding EUR25,000.

   (2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters
   blasphemous matter if--

       (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly
       abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any
       religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number
       of the adherents of that religion, and

       (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the
       matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

   (3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this
   section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would
   find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or
   academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

   (4) In this section "religion" does not include an organisation or
   cult--

       (a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or

       (b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation--

           (i) of its followers, or

           (ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

   37.--(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section
   36, the court may issue a warrant--

       (a) authorising any member of the Garda Síochána to enter (if
       necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable
       times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she
       has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the
       statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to
       search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the
       statement found therein,

       (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the
       Garda Síochána of all copies of the statement to which the
       offence related that are in the possession of any person,

       (c) specifying the manner in which copies so seized and
       removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Sý'ocha' na.

   (2) A member of the Garda Síochána may--

       (a) enter and search any premises,

       (b) seize, remove and detain any copy of a statement to which
       an offence under section 36 relates found therein or in the
       possession of any person, in accordance with a warrant under
       subsection (1).

   (3) Upon final judgment being given in proceedings for an offence
   under section 36, anything seized and removed under subsection (2)
   shall be disposed of in accordance with such directions as the
   court may give upon an application by a member of the Garda
   Síochána in that behalf.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |If the human brain were so simple
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |That we could understand it,
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |We would be so simple
                                      |That we couldn't.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Prai Jei - 07 Jan 2010 18:57 GMT
Evan Kirshenbaum set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

>>>> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the
>>>> week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>         of the adherents of that religion, and
> [ & mucel mo vpon þis wyse, ysnoppen ]

Er - um - sorry, where is the alleged defamation in what I wrote?
Signature

ξ:) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

James Hogg - 07 Jan 2010 19:04 GMT
> Evan Kirshenbaum set the following eddies spiralling through the
> space-time continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> Er - um - sorry, where is the alleged defamation in what I wrote?

Probably the accusation of heresy. I don't remember who the alleged
heretic was. You might escape legal action in Ireland if the following
clause applies:

(4) There shall be no publication for the purposes of the tort of
defamation if the defamatory statement concerned is published to
the person to whom it relates and to a person other than the person
to whom it relates in circumstances where—
(a) it was not intended that the statement would be published
to the second-mentioned person, and
(b) it was not reasonably foreseeable that publication of the
statement to the first-mentioned person would result in
its being published to the second-mentioned person.

I hope that's sufficiently clear.

Signature

James

Prai Jei - 07 Jan 2010 19:06 GMT
James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

> (4) There shall be no publication for the purposes of the tort of
> defamation if the defamatory statement concerned is published to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> I hope that's sufficiently clear.
As mud.
Signature

ξ:) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 15:05 GMT
>James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> I hope that's sufficiently clear.
>As mud.

Once he arises, David The Omrud will need to answer your question.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

the Omrud - 08 Jan 2010 15:09 GMT
>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>> continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Once he arises, David The Omrud will need to answer your question.

What do you mean, "arises"?  I've been up since 09:30, you know.

And, as Bart says, "It wasn't me".

Signature

David

Chuck Riggs - 09 Jan 2010 14:45 GMT
>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>>> continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>And, as Bart says, "It wasn't me".

Arises to the bait, arises within the newsgroup and arises in the
religious sense to offer us your wisdom. That's what I meant by
arises, David.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

the Omrud - 09 Jan 2010 15:32 GMT
>>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>>>> continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> religious sense to offer us your wisdom. That's what I meant by
> arises, David.

Ah, I see, thanks.  Unfortunately, I can't now be bothered to read back
through the thread.

Signature

David

Robin Bignall - 09 Jan 2010 21:43 GMT
>>>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>>>>> continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>Ah, I see, thanks.  Unfortunately, I can't now be bothered to read back
>through the thread.

So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat.  Will someone
really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now?
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Skitt - 09 Jan 2010 22:38 GMT

> So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat.  Will someone
> really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now?

I don't think I'll be able to say much a hundred years from now.  ;-)
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Robin Bignall - 10 Jan 2010 21:37 GMT
>> So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat.  Will someone
>> really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now?
>
>I don't think I'll be able to say much a hundred years from now.  ;-)

You never know, you know.....  but I'm just quoting.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

the Omrud - 10 Jan 2010 10:51 GMT
>>>>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>>>>>> continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat.  Will someone
> really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now?

I believe that people who edit diaries or correspondence have to throw
out most of what was written.  Same for us, I suppose.

Signature

David

Ian Dalziel - 10 Jan 2010 11:26 GMT
>>>>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>>>>>> continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat.  Will someone
>really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now?

If I'm saying anything at all 100 years from now it'll be quite
enthralling.

Signature

Ian D

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 10 Jan 2010 11:45 GMT
>>>>>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>>>>>>> continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>If I'm saying anything at all 100 years from now it'll be quite
>enthralling.

I'm delighted to hear it. Many people's utterances become repetitive
long before that age.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Chuck Riggs - 10 Jan 2010 14:17 GMT
>>>>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>>>>>> continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat.  Will someone
>really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now?

In the year 2525, if Man is still alive...
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Robin Bignall - 10 Jan 2010 21:39 GMT
>>>>>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>>>>>>> continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
>In the year 2525, if Man is still alive...

Hey, I'm supposed to make these sorts of pessimistic remarks about
mankind's future, now that Jan Sand is not posting.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Chuck Riggs - 11 Jan 2010 12:03 GMT
>>>>>>>> James Hogg set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>>>>>>>> continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>Hey, I'm supposed to make these sorts of pessimistic remarks about
>mankind's future, now that Jan Sand is not posting.

You can't pin the half-empty philosophy on me, Robin. You see, I never
did believe the lyrics to the song. I simply like the tune.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Peter Moylan - 11 Jan 2010 13:48 GMT
>> So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat.  Will someone
>> really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now?
>
> In the year 2525, if Man is still alive...

Chuck, you would probably qualify to join our choir. This evening, after
choir practice, we were singing "Bus Stop", "Mrs Brown, you've got a
lovely daughter", and a whole lot of others I've forgotten by now.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 15:01 GMT
>>> So much for past wisdom, just to cross threads somewhat.  Will someone
>>> really be enthralled by what we say 100 years from now?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>choir practice, we were singing "Bus Stop", "Mrs Brown, you've got a
>lovely daughter", and a whole lot of others I've forgotten by now.

I'd qualify in spirit if not in voice, for years of smoking took their
toll, but thank you for the thought, Peter.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Nick - 11 Jan 2010 07:44 GMT
> Probably the accusation of heresy. I don't remember who the alleged
> heretic was. You might escape legal action in Ireland if the following
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> I hope that's sufficiently clear.

I think it means that if I send you a letter accusing you of not being a
gentleman, and it gets delivered to the wrong address and opened and
read by the occupant, I haven't defamed you.

OTOH, that one hasn't actually been published to you as it's gone
astray.  I think I'd have to send you another copy and get it delivered
successfully before I could claim this defence.
Signature

Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

Jerry Friedman - 08 Jan 2010 16:56 GMT
> Evan Kirshenbaum set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> Er - um - sorry, where is the alleged defamation in what I wrote?

Saying "For Christians, it [Sunday] is the most important day" might
in principle be considered "grossly abusive or insulting in relation
to matters held sacred by" Seventh Day Adventists.

--
Jerry Friedman
Chuck Riggs - 08 Jan 2010 15:00 GMT
>>>> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the
>>>> week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>        religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number
>        of the adherents of that religion, and

<snip>

Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in
Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or
she knows no other way, to me the above means I have to be ultra
careful not to grossly insult Catholics, for example, by something I
post to alt.usage.english.
The law must be repealed, IMO, if the Irish government is to maintain
that we have freedom of speech in this country.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Evan Kirshenbaum - 08 Jan 2010 15:50 GMT
>>>>> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day
>>>>> of the week. For Christians it's the most important day and is
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> careful not to grossly insult Catholics, for example, by something I
> post to alt.usage.english.

But that's only one of the prongs.  The "and" leads into

       (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the
       matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

I suspect that they'd have trouble proving that you "intended to cause
outrage" by your remarks.

> The law must be repealed, IMO, if the Irish government is to maintain
> that we have freedom of speech in this country.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Now every hacker knows
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |  That the secret to survivin'
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |Is knowin' when the time is free
                                      |  And what's the load and queue
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |'Cause everyone's a cruncher
   (650)857-7572                      |  And everyone's a user
                                      |And the best that you can hope for
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/        |  Is a crash when you're through

Chuck Riggs - 09 Jan 2010 14:51 GMT
>>>>>> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day
>>>>>> of the week. For Christians it's the most important day and is
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>> The law must be repealed, IMO, if the Irish government is to maintain
>> that we have freedom of speech in this country.

If the law is unenforceable, since intent is virtually impossible to
prove, that is the second reason it should be repealed, the more
important reason remaining that it has no place in a land where
residents and visitors enjoy freedom of expression.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Peter Moylan - 09 Jan 2010 14:50 GMT
> Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in
> Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or
> she knows no other way, to me the above means I have to be ultra
> careful not to grossly insult Catholics, for example, by something I
> post to alt.usage.english.

I agree that that's a problem for you. This response, however, cannot be
said to have been published in the republic of Eire unless you read it.
Thus, my blasphemy is entirely dependent on your reading it. sh.t f.ck
the Pope, in case you are still reading. And the Ayotallah, may his
arsehole be forever forever reamed by the faithful.

I suppose I've just blown my latest application to enter Ireland.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Robin Bignall - 09 Jan 2010 21:45 GMT
>> Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in
>> Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>I suppose I've just blown my latest application to enter Ireland.

They'll probably let you enter, and reopen the Maze prison just for
you.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 09 Jan 2010 22:02 GMT
>>> Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in
>>> Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>They'll probably let you enter, and reopen the Maze prison just for
>you.

Different part of Ireland.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Robin Bignall - 10 Jan 2010 21:41 GMT
>>>> Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in
>>>> Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>Different part of Ireland.

Blaspheming the same deity, though, innit.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

James Hogg - 09 Jan 2010 22:02 GMT
>>> Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in
>>> Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> They'll probably let you enter, and reopen the Maze prison just for
> you.

Can the Eire government do that?

Signature

James

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 09 Jan 2010 22:09 GMT
>>>> Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in
>>>> Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>Can the Eire government do that?

I suppose we could sell it to them. Cf. the sale of London Bridge to the
American entrepreneur Robert P. McCulloch.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

HVS - 09 Jan 2010 22:15 GMT
On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote

>>>> I suppose I've just blown my latest application to enter
>>>> Ireland.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I suppose we could sell it to them. Cf. the sale of London
> Bridge to the American entrepreneur Robert P. McCulloch.

"Ah -- you thought you were buying the *Maze* prison.  Sorry:  we
were selling the *maize* prison -- where we incarcerate corn.  Pity;  
too late to change the contract now, though."

(Yes, yes, I know -- but it's an irresistable UL, innit.)

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

tony cooper - 09 Jan 2010 22:29 GMT
>On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>were selling the *maize* prison -- where we incarcerate corn.  Pity;  
>too late to change the contract now, though."

Was that where they imprisoned violators of the Corn Laws?  Or was it
up in Athenry where miscreants who stole Trevelyan's corn were
indungeoned before their hols in Oz?

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

HVS - 09 Jan 2010 22:32 GMT
On 09 Jan 2010, tony cooper wrote

>> On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> was it up in Athenry where miscreants who stole Trevelyan's corn
> were indungeoned before their hols in Oz?

It was the Corn Law violators, I think -- people who kept telling
mother-in-law jokes and bad puns after those were banned.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Chuck Riggs - 10 Jan 2010 14:26 GMT
>On 09 Jan 2010, tony cooper wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>It was the Corn Law violators, I think -- people who kept telling
>mother-in-law jokes and bad puns after those were banned.

I may be banned once They learn I read that as Corn Hole violators.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

James Hogg - 09 Jan 2010 22:54 GMT
>> On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote
>>>>>> I suppose I've just blown my latest application to enter
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> were selling the *maize* prison -- where we incarcerate corn.  Pity;  
>> too late to change the contract now, though."

Is that how maize is spelt?

> Was that where they imprisoned violators of the Corn Laws?  Or was it
> up in Athenry where miscreants who stole Trevelyan's corn were
> indungeoned before their hols in Oz?

Is it in the fields of Athenry that the wind shakes the barley?

Signature

James

tony cooper - 09 Jan 2010 23:08 GMT
>>> On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote
>>>>>>> I suppose I've just blown my latest application to enter
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>Is it in the fields of Athenry that the wind shakes the barley?

Right pants, wrong pocket.

The barley was in the fields of Wexford south of Galway.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

HVS - 09 Jan 2010 23:27 GMT
On 09 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote
>>> On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote

>>>> I suppose we could sell it to them. Cf. the sale of London
>>>> Bridge to the American entrepreneur Robert P. McCulloch.

>>> "Ah -- you thought you were buying the *Maze* prison.  Sorry:
>>> we were selling the *maize* prison -- where we incarcerate
>>> corn.  Pity;  too late to change the contract now, though."
>
> Is that how maize is spelt?

Only when it's used in oat cuisine.


Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

James Hogg - 09 Jan 2010 23:41 GMT
> On 09 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote
>>>> On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Only when it's used in oat cuisine.

The time is ripe for a new crop of serial puns.

Signature

James

Redshade - 10 Jan 2010 02:32 GMT
> > On 09 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote
> >>>> On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> --
> James

In the beginning  OGD said "let there be anagrams".
tony cooper - 10 Jan 2010 05:37 GMT
>> On 09 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote
>>>>> On 09 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>The time is ripe for a new crop of serial puns.

As an Englishman, you could have added "Cheerio" to that.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Chuck Riggs - 10 Jan 2010 14:22 GMT
>> Since I am posting to a public forum, easily available to anyone in
>> Ireland with a computer who knows how Google Groups works, if he or
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>the Pope, in case you are still reading. And the Ayotallah, may his
>arsehole be forever forever reamed by the faithful.

Since I shut my eyes when I encountered sh.t, f.ck and Pope, I should
be OK by the law.

>I suppose I've just blown my latest application to enter Ireland.

There are plenty of ways to cross the border.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Redshade - 06 Jan 2010 23:36 GMT
> Cheryl set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:

> Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the
> week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

I am a new poster to this site and have obviously missed a lot of
ongoing debates so please excuse my bringing up a point that may well
be an old chestnut.

The "Christian " calendar seems to be made up of days/months that are
named after non-christian/pagan objects of deification.

Please discuss. And I have no objection whatsoever to being pilloried
and poo-pooed.

Perhaps we could meet for lunch?

All the calendars/diaries/filofaxes (bit embarrassed about that latter
admission-but then aren't we all?) that I ever had always started with
Sunday.

Redshade (TFIC)

Ps.

TUT and PHOOEY if you don't know what "paradigm" means. It's that old
Amen Corner hit innit: "If Paradigm was half as nice as Heaven that
you sent me to/ who needs paradigm-I'd rather have you".
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 07 Jan 2010 00:38 GMT
>I am a new poster to this site and have obviously missed a lot of
>ongoing debates so please excuse my bringing up a point that may well
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Please discuss. And I have no objection whatsoever to being pilloried
>and poo-pooed.

The origins of names and the meanings of words do not necessarily have
any connection with their meanings today. History happens -- things
change.

Beware the Etymological fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

   The etymological fallacy holds, erroneously, that the original or
   historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its
   actual present-day meaning. This is a linguistic misconception,
   based on a mistaken idea concerning the etymology of words.

Words, like buildings and other physical objects, can be "repurposed".

>Perhaps we could meet for lunch?
>
>All the calendars/diaries/filofaxes (bit embarrassed about that latter
>admission-but then aren't we all?) that I ever had always started with
>Sunday.

The wall calendars that I have start the week on Sunday.

My Filofax and Time/System personal organisers start the week on Monday.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Robert Bannister - 08 Jan 2010 01:44 GMT
> The wall calendars that I have start the week on Sunday.

I misread that for "start a week on Sunday".

Signature

Rob Bannister

Prai Jei - 07 Jan 2010 18:52 GMT
Redshade set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

> I am a new poster to this site and have obviously missed a lot of
> ongoing debates so please excuse my bringing up a point that may well
> be an old chestnut.
Welcome, croeso, faílte, bienvenu, wilkommen, terve, etc.

> The "Christian " calendar seems to be made up of days/months that are
> named after non-christian/pagan objects of deification.
>
> Please discuss. And I have no objection whatsoever to being pilloried
> and poo-pooed.

As hinted elsewhere, the names have hung about long after they were of any
significance. Most Latin languages say "The Lord's Day" (Dimanche,
Domenico, etc.) for Sunday but dedicate the next day to the moon and the
rest to a selection of old Roman deities. German no longer names Wednesday
after a Wagner character but (along with Finnish) calls it "Midweek"
(Mittwoch, Keskiviikko). Portuguese is the only Latin language I'm aware of
that has totally chucked pagan names for the days of the week.

Welsh doesn't say "The Lord's Day" but sticks with "Sunday" (Dydd sul) then
follows Latin practice, so for a noted God-fearing nation we're as pagan as
E*****h with our day names. Ach-y-fi!

I'm one of the nice guys here (yes there are a few) so don't panic, you
won't get pilloried or pooh-poohed (or even tutted or phooied) by me.

> Perhaps we could meet for lunch?
Somehow I get the feeling that here we're seeing the female POV. Am I right?
(Date? Time? Place?)

> All the calendars/diaries/filofaxes (bit embarrassed about that latter
> admission-but then aren't we all?) that I ever had always started with
> Sunday.
Don't worry about remembering the Filofax, I've still got one somewhere.

> TUT and PHOOEY if you don't know what "paradigm" means. It's that old
> Amen Corner hit innit: "If Paradigm was half as nice as Heaven that
> you sent me to/ who needs paradigm-I'd rather have you".

I remember Amen Corner well (used to work at Bracknell, just down the road)
but somehow I didn't connect the song with paradigms. I was of course using
the word facetiously, all the while perfectly aware of its normal meaning.
Signature

ξ:) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

Mike Barnes - 06 Jan 2010 23:43 GMT
Prai Jei <pvstownsend.zyx.abc@ntlworld.com>:
>Cheryl set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
>> This one, however, goes from Monday-Sunday,
>Heresy!!!

There's nothing wrong with a bit of heresy AFAICS.

>Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the
>week. For Christians it's the most important day

That has nothing to do with me. I'll stick with the practical system, if
you don't mind.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Prai Jei - 07 Jan 2010 18:34 GMT
Mike Barnes set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

> Prai Jei <pvstownsend.zyx.abc@ntlworld.com>:
>>Cheryl set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> That has nothing to do with me. I'll stick with the practical system, if
> you don't mind.

For the believing Christian practical systems must take second place to the
Truth.
Signature

ξ:) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

James Hogg - 07 Jan 2010 18:39 GMT
> Mike Barnes set the following eddies spiralling through the
> space-time continuum:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> For the believing Christian practical systems must take second place
> to the Truth.

This could lead to a discussion of when the day begins. It's rather
practical to have our modern convention which rules that a day begins at
midnight, but in the Bible it begins at sunset.

When do you start observing the Sabbath?

Signature

James

Evan Kirshenbaum - 07 Jan 2010 19:06 GMT
> This could lead to a discussion of when the day begins. It's rather
> practical to have our modern convention which rules that a day begins at
> midnight, but in the Bible it begins at sunset.
>
> When do you start observing the Sabbath?

Jews start theirs at sundown on Friday night, and all holidays also
start at sundown "the night before".  But in my experience even
observent Jews think of the two main services as taking place "Friday
evening" and "Saturday morning" in English.

Looking at schedules for TV in Israel, their broadcast days for a
given date seem to run from morning to night.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Pious Jews have a category of
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |questions that can harmlessly be
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |allowed to go without an answer
                                      |until the Messiah comes.  I suspect
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |that this is one of them.
   (650)857-7572                      |                  Joseph C. Fineman

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Garrett Wollman - 07 Jan 2010 19:07 GMT
>This could lead to a discussion of when the day begins. It's rather
>practical to have our modern convention which rules that a day begins at
>midnight, but in the Bible it begins at sunset.

In broadcasting it begins at 5 AM.  (4 AM Central and Mountain.)

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

Paul Schmitz-Josten - 07 Jan 2010 07:18 GMT
Prai Jei in <hi2s25$7jl$1@news.eternal-september.org>:

>> I knew that it is possible to get calendars that vary from Sunday to
>> Saturday across the top, but hadn't happened to use them.
[...]
>> This one, however, goes from Monday-Sunday,

>Heresy!!! Sunday is and should always be shown as, the first day of the
>week. For Christians it's the most important day and is so designated in
>the Gospels, coming the day after Jewish Sabbath (the seventh day of the
>previous week).

Correct - if you accept wikipedia as a proof:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week-day_names#Weekdays_numbered_from_Sunday>

>Monday only begins the week in the world of Mammon, where Sunday is
>relegated to the end of the week, frequently scrunched into the same square
>as Saturday.

Correct again - it's the satanic UNO which decided on this in 1978 (the
Germans leading as a heresetic (sp?) spearhead in 1976), cemented by the
diabolic norm ISO-8601 in 1988:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week-day_names#Weekdays_numbered_from_Monday>

Ciao,

Paul
Paul Schmitz-Josten - 12 Jan 2010 09:08 GMT
Cheryl in <7qhjg6Ftq9U1@mid.individual.net>:

>I hadn't realized quite how much of my reading ability isn't so much in
>interpreting printed words as in interpreting patterns.

A toehry on wteritn lgagnaue settas taht you can mix up a wrod's lrtetes
wohuitt tnikag mcuh of its libiiegtly if olny the frsit and lsat rmiean
ucenganhd, and I've seen Gmrean emxaleps wchih wrok wlel!
(see below)

(calender weeks starting form Sunday or Monday)
>I would never have thought such a minor change would confuse my reading
>skills to that extent!

That's why the discussion now inevitably covers the existance of God::
<hifm51$d2m$1@news.eternal-september.org>

Chuckling,

Paul

A theory on written language states that you can mix up a word's letters
without taking much of its legibility if only the first and last remain
unchanged, and I've seen German examples which work well!

(Did it work for you English speaking people? I'd have trouble if I had not
written it myself)
R H Draney - 12 Jan 2010 09:40 GMT
Paul Schmitz-Josten filted:

>A theory on written language states that you can mix up a word's letters
>without taking much of its legibility if only the first and last remain
>unchanged, and I've seen German examples which work well!
>
>(Did it work for you English speaking people? I'd have trouble if I had not
>written it myself)

Do the author of this theory and his wife suffer martial troubles?...r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

HVS - 12 Jan 2010 09:42 GMT
On 12 Jan 2010, R H Draney wrote

> Paul Schmitz-Josten filted:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Do the author of this theory and his wife suffer martial
> troubles?...r

Would that be Cnut and his wife?

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

James Hogg - 12 Jan 2010 09:47 GMT
> Paul Schmitz-Josten filted:
>> A theory on written language states that you can mix up a word's
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Do the author of this theory and his wife suffer martial
> troubles?...r

Germans seem to like legibility tests of this kind. Even msuemus have
texts where the letters of a word can be arranged in manrdo order. In
the House at Checkpoint Charlie I read about how the East German
authorities coped with unrest by introducing "marital law".

Signature

James

Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2010 15:05 GMT
>Paul Schmitz-Josten filted:
>>
>>A theory on written language states that you can mix up a word's letters
>>without taking much of its legibility if only the first and last remain
>>unchanged, and I've seen German examples which work well!

How long did the unshuffling take you?

>>(Did it work for you English speaking people? I'd have trouble if I had not
>>written it myself)
>
>Do the author of this theory and his wife suffer martial troubles?...r
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Evan Kirshenbaum - 12 Jan 2010 16:17 GMT
> A toehry on wteritn lgagnaue settas taht you can mix up a wrod's
> lrtetes wohuitt tnikag mcuh of its libiiegtly if olny the frsit and
> lsat rmiean ucenganhd, and I've seen Gmrean emxaleps wchih wrok
> wlel!

[snip]

> A theory on written language states that you can mix up a word's
> letters without taking much of its legibility if only the first and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> (Did it work for you English speaking people? I'd have trouble if I
> had not written it myself)

Much of it was trivial.  The one, two, and three letter words are
unchanged, of course, and they give you a fair bit of the structure,
and four letter words necessarily simply have the two middle letters
swapped.  There are 36 words in that sentence, and that covers 21 of
them.  (More if you considered "word's" and "I've" two wrods each.)

The words that I had to look at longer were "settas" (states) and
"rmiean" (remain), the latter I could only get by working back from
what it pretty much had to be.

I've heard that this absolutely doesn't work in Hebrew.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |_Bauplan_ is just the German word
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |for blueprint.  Typically, one
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |switches languages to indicate
                                      |profundity.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |             Richard Dawkins
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Paul Schmitz-Josten - 13 Jan 2010 07:59 GMT
Evan Kirshenbaum in <4omrl2lu.fsf@hpl.hp.com>:

>> A toehry on wteritn lgagnaue settas taht you can mix up a wrod's
>> lrtetes wohuitt tnikag mcuh of its libiiegtly if olny the frsit and
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>swapped.  There are 36 words in that sentence, and that covers 21 of
>them.  (More if you considered "word's" and "I've" two wrods each.)

I noticed this, too, when I worked on it. Furtheron, I just proofed my
first guess wrong that this might be different from German: An example
gives 17 1-4 letter words out of 27 in total. Alas, I could read an example
text in German almost as fluently as unspoilt text.

>The words that I had to look at longer were "settas" (states) and
>"rmiean" (remain), the latter I could only get by working back from
>what it pretty much had to be.

I suppose that it depends how much you stir the letters.
"ucnahgned" may be easier than "ucenganhd" for "unchanged"(?),
and you can also sort the letters, thus making it appear like a letter
puzzle: "uaceghnnd" or "lbegiiilty" ;->

Everyday examples include simple permutations of single letters wihch
shuold not pose to much difficutlies to the redaer.

>I've heard that this absolutely doesn't work in Hebrew.

AFAIR they don't write the vowels, do they? That would turn
"nchngd" into "cnhgnd", possibly leaving more room for amibiguities
and taking the sound away: The i's from legibility contribute to it's
characteristics.

Ciao,

Paul
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.