 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / August 2011The perpetual calendar
Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I say the following: 1. That Christmas day should be fixed to a Sunday, and this should be the Sunday between Dec. 21 and 27, and that in all civilised countries the Monday should be considered a holiday, or the Saturday if not normally. 2. That similarly Easter day should be fixed to the Sunday which is 15 weeks following Christmas. 3. That the leap year rule be changed to have a leap year occur every fourth save that it be delayed when the leap year would start on a Thursday, and that this gives 7 leap years in every 29, which is near enough. 4. That the perpetual calendar can be made, by considering the first day of the year of weeks to occur on the Sunday after the Assumption, and if this is the first possible calendar day, it is called week 1, and otherwise week 2, and every year runs through week 53. And this calendar ensures that everything can be fixed to a day of a certain week, in particular the American Thanksgiving must be made 31 days before Christmas. 6. This is surely the best possible arrangement that can be made, without disturbing the cycle of weeks or that of calendar days inherited from the Romans. Andrew Usher > Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, > and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Andrew Usher The calendar has several sources, not just the Rome and the onewe habe in fine as it is. > > Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, > > and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > The calendar has several sources, not just the Rome and the onewe habe in > fine as it is I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. -- Halmyre >>> Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, >>> and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. But, the whole point of Easter is that it has a full moon! You might as well scrap the whole thing otherwise. Or are you suggesting that we only take holidays at Easter every four years or so, when your “settled” date just happens to correspond with the right lunar phase? J. >>>> Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the >>>> calendar, and attempting in passing to create a more perfect [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > we only take holidays at Easter every four years or so, when your > “settled” date just happens to correspond with the right lunar phase? My Book of Common Prayer makes things easy by pointing out that "the moon referred to in the definition of Easter Day is not the actual moon of the heavens, but the Calendar Moon, or Moon of the Lunar Cycle, which is counted as full on its fourteenth day, reckoned from the day of the Calendar New Moon inclusive." Also, in a Bissextile Year "the number of Sundays after Epiphany will be the same, as if Easter Day had fallen one day later than it really does." What could be simpler?  SignatureJames Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:34:10 +0100: James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com>: in sci.lang: >What could be simpler? The Jewish calendar. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:34:10 +0100: James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com>: > in sci.lang: > >> What could be simpler? > > The Jewish calendar. Is Pesach easier to calculate than Easter? SignatureJames Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:19:32 +0100: James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com>: in sci.lang: >> Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:34:10 +0100: James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com>: >> in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Is Pesach easier to calculate than Easter? Yes, because it's always on the same date (like all the other Festive Days) in the Jewish calendar. 14-21/22 Nisan. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesach SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:34:10 +0100: James Hogg <Jas.H...@gOUTmail.com>: > in sci.lang: > > >What could be simpler? > > The Jewish calendar. the Jewish Calendar has a complicated algorithm, IIRC refined by the famous 18th cent. mathematician Euler. the complications are due to making sure that certain holidays do not fall on certain days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Calendar << Hebrew calendar ... Special holiday rules Adjustments are made to ensure certain holy days and festivals do or do not fall on certain days of the week. Yom Kippur Adjustments are made to ensure that Yom Kippur, on which no work can be done, does not fall on Friday (the day prior to the Sabbath) to avoid having Yom Kippur's restrictions still going on at the start of Sabbath, or on Sunday (the day after Shabbat) to avoid having the Shabbat restrictions still going on at the start of Yom Kippur. The Rosh Hashanah postponement rules are the mechanism used to make the adjustments. As Yom Kippur falls on Tishrei 10, and Rosh Hashanah falls on the 1st, the adjustment is made so that Rosh Hashanah does not fall on a Wednesday or Friday. To ensure that Yom Kippur does not directly precede or follow Shabbat, and that Hoshana Rabbah is not on a Shabbat, in which case certain ceremonies would be lost for a year, the first day of Rosh Hashanah may only occur on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays (the "four gates"). Adjustments are made to ensure that Rosh Hashanah does not fall on the other three days. To achieve that result the year may be made into a short (chaser) year (both Kislev and Cheshvan have 29 days) or full (maleh) year (both Kislev and Cheshvan have 30 days). (see table) The day of the week on which Rosh Hashanah falls in any given year will also be the day on which Sukkot and Shmini Atzeret will occur. >> > -- > Ruud Harmsen,http://rudhar.com > >>> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Sundays after Epiphany will be the same, as if Easter Day had fallen one > day later than it really does." Which is why Easter and Passover rarely coincide -- we happen to have had a spate of coincidence in recent years, but that'll soon be over. > What could be simpler? The Muslim calendar -- no intercalated months, and no connection with the solar year. So Ramadan drifts through the seasons. > > >>> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > The Muslim calendar -- no intercalated months, and no connection with > the solar year. So Ramadan drifts through the seasons. Ramadan is celebrated according to the actual siting of the crescent, not the (various) algorithms used for civil purposes, though I think some "cheat" by using the algorithms (there are a couple most frequently used). last time in Iraq the Shia and the Sunni observed it at different dates. so it is rather complicated. > > > >>> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > frequently used). last time in Iraq the Shia and the Sunni observed it > at different dates. so it is rather complicated.- They _do_ publish calendars that cover more than the next 29 1/2 days, don't they? Such information _can_ be calculated (and was calculated 3000 years ago in Mesopotamia), and varies from site to site depending on latitude, weather, and surrounding terrain (i.e., where's the horizon?). > > > > >>> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > They _do_ publish calendars that cover more than the next 29 1/2 days, > don't they? Such information _can_ be calculated (and was calculated some allow calculation, but conservatives wait for a fatwa from the religious authorities to commence Ramadan, and this is the practice in many muslim countries. as I said before, in Iraq this resulted in the Shia and the Sunni observing Ramadan with a days difference.for other religious days, the algorithm may be used, but there are several versions of that, some being more common than others. > 3000 years ago in Mesopotamia), and varies from site to site depending > on latitude, weather, and surrounding terrain (i.e., where's the > horizon?). >> My Book of Common Prayer makes things easy by pointing out that >> "the moon referred to in the definition of Easter Day is not the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Which is why Easter and Passover rarely coincide -- we happen to have > had a spate of coincidence in recent years, but that'll soon be over. Which years were those? I had thought that the current Easter rules made it impossible for it to fall on the 15th of Nissan. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |We never met anyone who believed in 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |fortune cookies. That's astounding. Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Belief in the precognitive powers |of an Asian pastry is really no kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |wackier than belief in ESP, (650)857-7572 |subluxation, or astrology, but you |just don't hear anyone preaching http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |Scientific Cookie-ism. | Penn and Teller >>> My Book of Common Prayer makes things easy by pointing out that >>> "the moon referred to in the definition of Easter Day is not the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Which years were those? I had thought that the current Easter rules > made it impossible for it to fall on the 15th of Nissan. I understood that it is not actually impossible but that the coincidence is very rare. ISTR it happened at some point in the early 1980s. Of course, Passover week quite often covers Good Friday and Easter Sunday - it does this year. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > >> My Book of Common Prayer makes things easy by pointing out that > >> "the moon referred to in the definition of Easter Day is not the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Which years were those? I had thought that the current Easter rules > made it impossible for it to fall on the 15th of Nissan. I think it was two years ago that the first night of Passover was on Holy Thursday (or vice versa), which precisely reproduced the historical occasion. Why would the "current" Easter rules have such a restriction? There's certainly nothing about it in the several pages of small type in the front of the Book of Common Prayer (1928), which I read plenty of times while waiting for Morning Prayer to end. >> >> My Book of Common Prayer makes things easy by pointing out that >> >> "the moon referred to in the definition of Easter Day is not the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Holy Thursday (or vice versa), which precisely reproduced the > historical occasion. Oh, that's what you meant. I though that you were talking about Passover and Easter actually occurring on the same day. But if Holy Thursday is taken to run from midnight to midnight (rather than sundown to sundown), I don't think that that's possible, since the Hebrew calendar doesn't let Pesach fall on a Friday (with the seder on the preceding Thursday night). Of course, it also prohibits it from falling on a Monday, so a seder is never on a Sunday night. > Why would the "current" Easter rules have such a restriction? > There's certainly nothing about it in the several pages of small > type in the front of the Book of Common Prayer (1928), which I read > plenty of times while waiting for Morning Prayer to end. My admittedly fuzzy memory was that one of the Nicean councils had taken that as one of its constraints when setting up the rules that the two never coincide. The Wikipedia page on the First Council of Nicea says that I was wrong, but says it explicitly: Nor did the Council decree that Easter must never coincide with Nisan 15 (the first Day of Unleavened Bread, now commonly called "Passover") in the Hebrew calendar. which implies that it must be a common misconception. SignatureEvan 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/ > > I think it was two years ago that the first night of Passover was on > > Holy Thursday (or vice versa), which precisely reproduced the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Hebrew calendar doesn't let Pesach fall on a Friday (with the seder on > the preceding Thursday night). In Christ's time, there was no such rule, clearly. Andrew Usher >> > I think it was two years ago that the first night of Passover was >> > on Holy Thursday (or vice versa), which precisely reproduced the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > In Christ's time, there was no such rule, clearly. Right. They would still have been depending on observation of the new moon to establish Rosh Chodesh, the first of the month, and ordering a leap month by fiat when it seemed to be necessary to keep Passover in the spring (Wikipedia says, plausibly, that this happened when the barley wasn't yet ripe at the beginning of what would have been Nissan (originally "Aviv").) I think that by then there may already have been rules that bumped certain months by a day to keep certain holidays (e.g., Yom Kippur) from falling on certain days (which is the actual reason that the modern calendar happens to never have Nissan 15 falling on a Friday), but they would have kicked in on the specific months in question (e.g., Tishrei for Yom Kippur). SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing. | Dean Thompson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > > I think it was two years ago that the first night of Passover was on > > > Holy Thursday (or vice versa), which precisely reproduced the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > In Christ's time, there was no such rule, clearly. Clearly according to the Synoptic Gospels, but some interpret John to say that Passover that year was on a Saturday. From an Orthodox site: "According to the Gospel of John, Pascha just happened to fall on a Saturday† the year that Jesus was crucified. It is important to note that Christ died on the Cross at the very hour the paschal lambs were being slaughtered for the Feast; thus Christ is our Pascha, our Passover Lamb, sacrificed for us." The footnote is to John 11:55. http://www.antiochian.org/node/17394 The chronological table in the Jerusalem Bible dates Jesus' death to 30 A.D. on the basis that it was on a Friday, "the eve of the Passover". -- Jerry Friedman > >>> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Sundays after Epiphany will be the same, as if Easter Day had fallen one > day later than it really does." the Orthodox (Eastern) churches have a slightly different system. dunno exactly what it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter Easter ... Easter is a moveable feast, meaning it is not fixed in relation to the civil calendar. The First Council of Nicaea (325) established the date of Easter as the first Sunday after the full moon (the Paschal Full Moon) following the vernal equinox.[3] Ecclesiastically, the equinox is reckoned to be on March 21 (regardless of the astronomically correct date), and the "Full Moon" is not necessarily the astronomically correct date. The date of Easter therefore varies between March 22 and April 25. Eastern Christianity bases its calculations on the Julian Calendar whose March 21 corresponds, during the twenty-first century, to April 3 in the Gregorian Calendar, in which calendar their celebration of Easter therefore varies between April 4 and May 8. > What could be simpler? > > -- > James Yusuf wrote on Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:35:24 -0800 (PST): > >>>> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >>>>> Church calendar, I say the following: 1. That Christmas day > >>>>> should be fixed to a Sunday, and this should be the Why don't you take the continued fraction approximation to the solar year and work out some rules for the dates in a year? A good approximation is surprisingly simple. The solar year (365.24219 days) is 365 8/33 days with an error of 2 x10^-4, according to Ron Knott's site: http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/cfCALC.html SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not Yusuf B Gursey wrote (19-02-2010 15:35): > the Orthodox (Eastern) churches have a slightly different system. > dunno exactly what it is. Afaik the system is the same, it's March 21 that is different. > Yusuf B Gursey wrote (19-02-2010 15:35): > > > the Orthodox (Eastern) churches have a slightly different system. > > dunno exactly what it is. > > Afaik the system is the same, it's March 21 that is different. but for the Orthodox, the Gregorian calendar has been accepted for other holidays. the Monophysites (Copts, Armenians, Jacobite Syrians) observe Christmas at a different date for other reasons. Yusuf B Gursey wrote (19-02-2010 17:20): >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (19-02-2010 15:35): >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > other holidays. the Monophysites (Copts, Armenians, Jacobite Syrians) > observe Christmas at a different date for other reasons. Don't tell them it's the gregorian calendar! It's the revised julian. Don't call the others monophysites, they prefer miaphysite. The Finnish Orthodox Church is said to have adopted the gregorian calendar. Of the other Orthodox, some have adopted the revised julian for fixed feasts but keep the julian for moveable ones. The moveable ones are the important ones. The use of two calendars wreaks havoc with the liturgical year. > The Finnish Orthodox Church is said to have adopted the gregorian > calendar. This is indeed so. SignatureAatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Aatu Koskensilta filted: >"Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen" > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Dog Latin translation: "That man can't speak, but he sure can swing!" ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >Easter is a moveable feast, meaning it is not fixed in relation to the >civil calendar. The First Council of Nicaea (325) established the date [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >astronomically correct date. The date of Easter therefore varies >between March 22 and April 25. It does, but at present (certainly until 2199, at which point we move to a new table) it is not capable of falling on 22 March. Of course we had 23 March in 2008 and there's a 24 April coming up next year. Regards Jonathan >Easter is a moveable feast, meaning it is not fixed in relation to the >civil calendar. The First Council of Nicaea (325) established the date [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >astronomically correct date. The date of Easter therefore varies >between March 22 and April 25. It does, but at present (certainly until 2199, at which point we move to a new table) it is not capable of falling on 22 March. Of course we had 23 March in 2008 and there's a 24 April coming up next year. Regards Jonathan On Feb 19, 5:07 pm, "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan.mortonbutignorethisp...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >Easter is a moveable feast, meaning it is not fixed in relation to the > >civil calendar. The First Council of Nicaea (325) established the date [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jonathan BTW I didn't write the quoted text. >>>>> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Easter Orthodox Easter and other events are based on the Julian Calendar (one year = 365.25 days), while Catholic and Protestant practice follows the Gregorian calendar (one year = 365.2425 days plus the 1582 dropping of 10 days). Over several centuries, the date of the spring equinox has drifted away from March 21 in the Orthodox calendar. The two religious systems have different methods for calculating Easter within their own calendars. Do a Google search for "calendar FAQ". > Easter is a moveable feast, meaning it is not fixed in relation to the > civil calendar. The First Council of Nicaea (325) established the date [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> -- >> James SignatureMike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) > >>>>> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Do a Google search for "calendar FAQ". yes, thank you IIRC somebody else pointed that out. > > Easter is a moveable feast, meaning it is not fixed in relation to the > > civil calendar. The First Council of Nicaea (325) established the date [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) John Atkinson skrev: >>>> Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the >>>> calendar, and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But, the whole point of Easter is that it has a full moon! You might as > well scrap the whole thing otherwise. True. When accompanied by clear weather, as it often is, the full Easter moon on the snow gives enough light to perform most tasks unaided. A great help for those who spend Easter carrying a tent around in the mountains. Clearly, a calendar that doesn't accomodate the needs of such an important group isn't worth the van Gogh reproductions. SignatureTrond Engen THANK GOD OR THE DEVIL that NONE OF YOU RULE John Atkinson <johnacko@bigpond.com>: >> I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. >> >But, the whole point of Easter is that it has a full moon! A full-*ish* moon, actually. The definitions of the equinox and full moon used when determining Easter are rather different from the real definitions used by astronomers, which would actually give rise to different (perhaps several weeks different) Easter dates depending on one's longitude. But I thought that for most people the whole point of Easter is that they get time off work. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com>: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But I thought that for most people the whole point of Easter is that > they get time off work. not in the US, at least not in my state. > -- > Mike Barnes > Cheshire, England > > John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com>: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > not in the US, at least not in my state. ? Time off? Offices aren't open on Sundays anyway, and retail stores haven't closed on holidays in years. >>> John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com>: >>>>> I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ? Time off? Offices aren't open on Sundays anyway, and retail stores > haven't closed on holidays in years. Right. Not only are both Friday and Monday holidays, the Friday is the most closed up holiday of all in Australia - worse than Christmas Day - no paper, no shops, no pubs, no nothing. We do seem to be moving rapidly to shops being open every day; our government tells us this is progress; I am not convinced. SignatureRob Bannister Yusuf B Gursey <ybg@theworld.com>: >> But I thought that for most people the whole point of Easter is that >> they get time off work. > >not in the US, at least not in my state. So I now understand. Here in England, Friday and Monday are holidays, and school terms fit around them. That's the problem with Easter. I think it's fair to say that many people here would be happy if they fixed the dates of the public holidays (e.g. second weekend in April) and allowed the holy day to shift as it will. I don't if or why disconnecting them would matter to anyone. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com>: > >> But I thought that for most people the whole point of Easter is that > >> they get time off work. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and allowed the holy day to shift as it will. I don't if or why > disconnecting them would matter to anyone. That's because you're stuck with a state religion. In NYC, parking regulations are suspended for just about anyone's religious holidays. >> Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com>: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > In NYC, parking regulations are suspended for just about anyone's > religious holidays. Hey, we get to take some religious holidays (Christmas Day and Good Friday) off work even without a state religion! I'm ecumenical; I'd take ANY religious holidays. I suspect that there's some rule that you have to be a member of the religion in question in order to not work that aren't also legal or secular holidays, but that could be fixed by making them ALL legal holidays. My home province ended up cancelling some of the religious (ie Christian) holidays from the list of legal days off in the interests of increased productivity, but some workers still have the old list embodied in their contracts. Now, of course, some of them get "Mid-March" and "Mid-July" off rather than religious holidays. SignatureCheryl > >> Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com>: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > old list embodied in their contracts. Now, of course, some of them get > "Mid-March" and "Mid-July" off rather than religious holidays. What "religious holiday" does "Mid-July" accommodate? >>>> Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com>: >>>>>> But I thought that for most people the whole point of Easter is that [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > What "religious holiday" does "Mid-July" accommodate? I was thinking St. George's Day, but when I checked, it was Orangemen's Day. When all these were drawn up, people of both Irish Catholic and English Protestant ancestry had to be accommodated, but I'd forgotten that the Protestant got two days to the Catholic's single St. Patrick's Day. SignatureCheryl > >>>> Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com>: > >>>>>> But I thought that for most people the whole point of Easter is that [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I was thinking St. George's Day, but when I checked, it was Orangemen's > Day. I grew up in a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian church in NYC, and I recall Orangemen's Day as being August 5. I didn't learn what it commemorated until I'd left for college, and was not happy. The congregation lnog ago became Hispanic, and merged with a neighboring Presbyterian church, but the building was made a NYC landmark last year. > When all these were drawn up, people of both Irish Catholic and English > Protestant ancestry had to be accommodated, but I'd forgotten that the > Protestant got two days to the Catholic's single St. Patrick's Day. >>> What "religious holiday" does "Mid-July" accommodate? >> I was thinking St. George's Day, but when I checked, it was Orangemen's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > neighboring Presbyterian church, but the building was made a NYC > landmark last year. July 12, or Monday nearest. Of course, holidays can and do shift, so maybe the authorities in New York re-scheduled it. Since it wasn't a school holiday, or rather, occurred during the shool holidays, Orangeman's Day was of minimal interest to me as a child. At that time, some rural communities still had the annual parade with King William riding on a white horse at the head of it, but that wasn't a tradition in my home town, and I didn't even hear of it until I was an adult living elsewhere. By that time, I think the tradition had died out entirely, but the holiday wasn't taken off the government list until later. Fortunately, we'd managed to abandon the Protestant-Catholic violence associated with the event well before we lost the parade led by the man on the white horse. I don't know how I managed to conflate it with St. George's Day. Maybe because they're both associated with Protestants. I really like July & August, though. We start the last week in June celebrating St. John the Baptist Day because that's the official founding date of the city I live in. Then there's July 1, both Canada Day and the memorial day for the Newfoundland soldiers who died in WW I. Next comes the mid-July holiday, and then we have to work for a couple of weeks until our August municipal holiday, which in my municipality is usually in the first week of August. And my workplace closes for all of them. But we still lack a February holiday, unless we have a big enough snowstorm. SignatureCheryl [...] > But we still lack a February holiday, unless we have a big enough snowstorm. February is the cruelest month. SignatureMichael Press > [...] > >> But we still lack a February holiday, unless we have a big enough snowstorm. > > February is the cruelest month. February is the longest month. I thought US had President's Day in February now. /BAH >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > /BAH But I'm in Canada, so we don't celebrate President's Day at all, whenever it comes. I'd make do with a 'mid-February Holiday' in honour of nothing in particular if I could be guaranteed a break in that dreary month. I suppose we could adopt Valentine's Day as a public holiday. SignatureCheryl > >> In article <7ufdetFoc...@mid.individual.net>, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of nothing in particular if I could be guaranteed a break in that dreary > month. We used to have Lincoln's Birthday on Feb 12 and Washington's Birthday on Feb 22. A while ago, they were rolled into one movable feast. > I suppose we could adopt Valentine's Day as a public holiday. A holiday in honor of a single industry? What's significant about Mr (formerly St) Valentine? >>>> In article <7ufdetFoc...@mid.individual.net>, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > A holiday in honor of a single industry? What's significant about Mr > (formerly St) Valentine? Nothing at all - except maybe all the people who buy pink junk in his honour would support the idea of a public holiday in February since St. Valentine - or the candy industry or the manufacturers of pink boxes - already has a well-publicized day in the middle of February. SignatureCheryl >>>> In article <7ufdetFoc...@mid.individual.net>, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > A holiday in honor of a single industry? What's significant about Mr > (formerly St) Valentine? There are at least three industries I can think of -- chocolate/ sweets, flower and greeting cards. Teddy bear is coming up strong. Btw, President's Day is very big in the auto industry -- at least in the Northeast. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >>>> In article <7ufdetFoc...@mid.individual.net>, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > A holiday in honor of a single industry? What's significant about Mr > (formerly St) Valentine? Single industry? Cards, flowers, perfume, clothing, restaurants, jewellery... I think it must be very important to a wide range of industry. SignatureRob Bannister To AUE only: >Single industry? Cards, flowers, perfume, clothing, restaurants, >jewellery... I think it must be very important to a wide range of industry. Must that be "a wide range of industries", or is this a Pondian matter? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > To AUE only: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Must that be "a wide range of industries", or is this a Pondian > matter? I don't think it's important. It depends on whether you are thinking of "industry" as a single, abstract concept or as lots of separate, concrete places. SignatureRob Bannister >> To AUE only: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I don't think it's important. Compared to achieving peace in the Middle East or my lunch arriving hot, I don't either. > It depends on whether you are thinking of >"industry" as a single, abstract concept or as lots of separate, >concrete places. Either way, your phrase, "a wide range of industry" looks strange to me. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> To AUE only: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Either way, your phrase, "a wide range of industry" looks strange to >me. I don't have much trouble with a phrase like, "American industry is wide-ranging." Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> In article <7ufdetFoc...@mid.individual.net>, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > We used to have Lincoln's Birthday on Feb 12 and Washington's Birthday > on Feb 22. A while ago, they were rolled into one movable feast. And were declared a government holiday. >> I suppose we could adopt Valentine's Day as a public holiday. > > A holiday in honor of a single industry? There is Christmas and Thanksgiving and Mother's Day and Easter. >What's significant about Mr > (formerly St) Valentine? Oh, are you ever in trouble ;-) /BAH [industrial leave] >> What's significant about Mr >> (formerly St) Valentine? > > Oh, are you ever in trouble ;-) According to Google, his handle hasn't been attached to a posting since 2006; so maybe it's Saint Valentine again. Hope not. Would no more RJ mean no more RF, YJ, or CJ either? >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I suppose we could adopt Valentine's Day as a public holiday. Take a drive south and you'll have a holiday in February :-). If your visit is based on business, you might have to enjoy the holiday since some businesses close on that day. /BAH <snip> > But I'm in Canada, so we don't celebrate President's Day at all, > whenever it comes. I'd make do with a 'mid-February Holiday' in honour > of nothing in particular if I could be guaranteed a break in that dreary > month. In Alberta we have Family Day, the third Monday in February IIANM, but when the government introduced it (perhaps twenty years ago) they neglected to amend the labour laws to increase the minimum number of paid holidays. So it's mainly civil servants, teachers, and a few other unionized workers that get the day off, while the rest of us get a dose of envy to go with our February blahs. SignatureOdysseus >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >February is the longest month. I thought US had President's Day in >February now. As far as I can tell, the only employers that are closed on President's Day are government offices, schools, and banks. To the rest of the working stiffs, President's Day is just another work-day...a busier work-day for retail employees, in fact. For some reason, retailers think that I will be in the market for a new refrigerator, set of pillow cases, or an automobile in honor of President James J. Polk. Newspapers benefit from President's Day from all of the full-page sale advertisements. My son was shopping for new tires and found that a local tire store, that normally offers a 25% discount on purchase of four tires, had a President's Day sale offering of four tires for the price of three. Was P.T. Barnum ever President? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > >> In article <7ufdetFoc...@mid.individual.net>, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > As far as I can tell, the only employers that are closed on > President's Day are government offices, schools, and banks. ... Not even including community colleges, at least around here. -- Jerry Friedman > As far as I can tell, the only employers that are closed on > President's Day are government offices, schools, and banks. To the > rest of the working stiffs, President's Day is just another > work-day...a busier work-day for retail employees, in fact. It's a company holiday at HP (in the US). Our holiday calendar is New Year's Day (or the first weekday thereafter) Martin Luther King Day President's Day Memorial Day Independence Day (or the closest weekday) Labor Day Thanksgiving Day and the day after Christmas and one "company-designated floater", typically used to make Christmas, New Years, or the Fourth of July into a four-day weekend. (This year it's 12/31.) Before we got MLK Day, we got a "Spring Holiday" that always fell on Good Friday. In the UK, they get, let's see New Year's Day and, in Scotland, the day after St. Patrick's Day (only in Northern Ireland) Good Friday Easter Monday (except in Scotland) May Bank Holiday (May 3rd) Late Spring Bank Holiday (May 31st) Summer Holiday (July 12th in NI, August 2nd in Scotland) Late Summer Bank Holiday (August 30th, not in Scotland) Christmas Day Boxing Day In Australia, the ones marked as "company holidays" are New Year's Day Labour Day Easter Monday ANZAC Day (in NSW and WA) Christmas Day Boxing Day There are a bunch of others on the calendar, varying by site, but it's not clear that those are actually days off. Interestingly, Labour Day is all over the calendar: Mar. 7th Western Australia Mar. 8th Victoria May 3rd Queensland Oct. 4th ACT, NSW, SA I don't see it listed for the Tasmanian sites (Launceston and Hobart) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There are just two rules of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |governance in a free society: Mind Palo Alto, CA 94304 |your own business. Keep your hands |to yourself. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> As far as I can tell, the only employers that are closed on >> President's Day are government offices, schools, and banks. To the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > (This year it's 12/31.) Before we got MLK Day, we got a "Spring > Holiday" that always fell on Good Friday. You're being robbed. At Lockheed, when I was still working, we got an average of 13 paid holidays per year. Most of them were the days between Christmas and New Year's (inclusive, of course). The others were Memorial Day, Independence Day (and the adjacent day if there was only one day between ID and a weekend), Labor Day, and Thanksgiving Day and the Friday after it. The days off at Christmas time varied in number, as there was usually an extra day or two thrown in, depending on what day of the week the actual holidays fell. A long time ago, we didn't get the time off between Christmas and New Year's. Then the company realized that no one did any actual work during that period and decided to institute the holiday schedule I described above. Everyone liked that, and the company saved a lot of money, practically shutting down all the plants. <snip> SignatureSkitt (AmE) > You're being robbed. At Lockheed, when I was still working, we got > an average of 13 paid holidays per year. Most of them were the days [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > described above. Everyone liked that, and the company saved a lot of > money, practically shutting down all the plants. They did the same thing for us starting a few years ago, except they said "We're closing. You *will* take vacation. If you don't have enough vacation you can borrow against next year's". So essentially, you can look at it as having taken several days of vacation away from everybody in exchange for an equivalent number of holiday days. (Unless you leave before the end of the year, of course, in which case they have to pay you for those "holidays".) SignatureEvan 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/ Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >> You're being robbed. At Lockheed, when I was still working, we got >> an average of 13 paid holidays per year. Most of them were the days [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >(Unless you leave before the end of the year, of course, in which >case they have to pay you for those "holidays".) We used to get nine holidays (New Years, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas), plus four "floaters" and some number of vacation days based on seniority...around 1985 they took away Columbus Day and added MLK...a few years after that they did away with the separate categories and just handed out a fixed number of "PTO" (paid time off) days that could be used whenever we scheduled them, which meant that you could get stuck working Christmas Day if you'd taken off too many days earlier in the year, or if everyone else in your department had already requested it and a manager decided that "coverage" was required.... Before everything got lumped into a single category, the important distinction was that they had to pay you for any unused vacation days if you left before the end of the year; holidays (including floaters) were simply forfeited...one year, to simplify the bookkeeping, I changed my initial request for some days off from one category to the other, prompting a series of visits from managers afraid I was getting ready to jump ship....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > Interestingly, Labour Day [in Australia] is all over the calendar: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I don't see it listed for the Tasmanian sites (Launceston and Hobart) The original form of this holiday was called "eight hour day". (I think it's still called that in Tasmania.) I'm not sure when it became a public holiday in Australia, but I think it was well before the custom of using May Day as a celebration of workers' rights. Because Australia already had an Eight Hour Day, May Day never became a public holiday the way it did in most other countries. That's part of the explanation of why it's not celebrated on the traditional Labour Day (1st May). The other part of the explanation is that public holidays are controlled by the states, and the different states have shown no urge to move towards a more uniform system. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > > Interestingly, Labour Day [in Australia] is all over the calendar: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That's part of the explanation of why it's not celebrated on the > traditional Labour Day (1st May). Wait, Labour day is in May some places? (Googles--yep) In the US, Memorial Day and Labor Day are sort of the bookends for summer/outdoor activity--Memorial Day is the last Monday of May, while Labor Day is the first Monday of September. I know we're lacking a "u", but Labour Day in Canada is also the first Monday of September. >> Interestingly, Labour Day [in Australia] is all over the calendar: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > already had an Eight Hour Day, May Day never became a public holiday the > way it did in most other countries. Ah, that's where Tasmania went. Launceston gets "Eight Hour Day" on March 8th and Hobart gets "Eight Hours Day" the same day. Or, at least, those dates are listed, though they don't have "Company Holiday" in the text. Others that aren't flagged as company holidays are Australia Day, Royal Regatta Day, Launceston Cup Day, Canberra Day (ACT), Good Friday, Easter Tuesday (in Hobart), Foundation Day (WA), Queen's Birthday (June 14th except in WA where it's September 27th), Bank Holiday (NSW), Royal National Show Day (Qld), Family & Community Day (ACT), Royal Launceston Show, Royal Hobart Show, Melbourne Cup Day, and Proclamation Day (SA). (I may have missed a couple.) I have no idea whether any or all of them are paid holidays. > That's part of the explanation of why it's not celebrated on the > traditional Labour Day (1st May). The other part of the explanation is > that public holidays are controlled by the states, and the different > states have shown no urge to move towards a more uniform system. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I may digress momentarily from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |the mainstream of this evening's Palo Alto, CA 94304 |symposium, I'd like to sing a song |which is completely pointless. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Tom Lehrer (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> Interestingly, Labour Day [in Australia] is all over the calendar: >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > and Proclamation Day (SA). (I may have missed a couple.) I have no > idea whether any or all of them are paid holidays. When I lived in Toorak, Melbourne Cup Day was definitely a paid state holiday. pjk >> That's part of the explanation of why it's not celebrated on the >> traditional Labour Day (1st May). The other part of the explanation is >> that public holidays are controlled by the states, and the different >> states have shown no urge to move towards a more uniform system. > When I lived in Toorak, Melbourne Cup Day was definitely > a paid state holiday. I don't think so. It has only ever been a holiday in the Melbourne area, not statewide. Once you are more than about 80-100 km from Melbourne, you find they have their own country race day or agricultural show day local holidays on other dates instead. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >> When I lived in Toorak, Melbourne Cup Day was definitely >> a paid state holiday. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you find they have their own country race day or agricultural show day > local holidays on other dates instead. Agreed. Melbourne Cup Day has never been a holiday in NSW. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> When I lived in Toorak, Melbourne Cup Day was definitely >>> a paid state holiday. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > Agreed. Melbourne Cup Day has never been a holiday in NSW. I didn't suggest that. I spent a few years living in NSW too and I know it never was a holiday over there. I thought it was a state holiday in VIC. But John says it's never been even that. pjk >> When I lived in Toorak, Melbourne Cup Day was definitely >> a paid state holiday. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you find they have their own country race day or agricultural show day > local holidays on other dates instead. Okay, I am happy to be corrected. I never researched it when I lived there. It was just an impression I formed at the time. pjk >> Interestingly, Labour Day [in Australia] is all over the calendar: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that public holidays are controlled by the states, and the different > states have shown no urge to move towards a more uniform system. Moreover, the date given above must be for another year. This year, in WA, it's on the 1st March which will be nice for the Welsh. SignatureRob Bannister >> As far as I can tell, the only employers that are closed on >> President's Day are government offices, schools, and banks. To the [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > I don't see it listed for the Tasmanian sites (Launceston and Hobart) And, in Massachusetts, Patriot's Day is a requirement :-). I sure would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when HP discovered that Monday was almost as holy as Christmas. /BAH >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > As far as I can tell, the only employers that are closed on > President's Day are government offices, schools, and banks. There are others. > To the > rest of the working stiffs, President's Day is just another [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > President's Day sale offering of four tires for the price of three. > Was P.T. Barnum ever President? Nope, we have one who believes he can fool all the people all of the time. So far, it looks like he's right. :-( /BAH On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:56:25 -0500 in alt.usage.english, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote, >As far as I can tell, the only employers that are closed on >President's Day are government offices, schools, and banks. To the There is no such holiday as "President's Day" to US government offices. http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2010.asp >On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:56:25 -0500 in alt.usage.english, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >There is no such holiday as "President's Day" to US government offices. >http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2010.asp Interesting. I had assumed there was. And I see that there is one in some states. Certainly businesses think there is one in their sales advertisements. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:09:57 -0800, David Harmon > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > in some states. Certainly businesses think there is one in their > sales advertisements. The Post Office was closed for Presidents' Day in 2010. >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:09:57 -0800, David Harmon >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >The Post Office was closed for Presidents' Day in 2010. Not an American post office. They were closed for Washington's Birthday, no matter what a sign on the door or whatnot might have said. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:44:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Birthday, no matter what a sign on the door or whatnot might have > said. Don't be ridiculous. Washington's Birthday is February 22 (Gregorian), and Presidents' Day was observed on Feburary 15. Peter T. Daniels (in alt.usage.english): >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:44:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Don't be ridiculous. Washington's Birthday is February 22 (Gregorian), > and Presidents' Day was observed on Feburary 15. "Washington's Birthday is a United States federal holiday celebrated on the third Monday of February. It is also commonly known as Presidents Day (sometimes spelled as Presidents' Day or President's Day). As Washington's Birthday or Presidents Day, it is also the official name of a concurrent state holiday celebrated on the same day in a number of states. Contents History. Titled Washington's Birthday, a federal holiday honoring George Washington was originally implemented by an Act of Congress in 1880 for government offices in the District of Columbia (20 Stat. 277) and expanded in 1885 to include all federal offices (23 Stat. 516). As the first federal holiday to honor an American citizen, the holiday was celebrated on Washington's actual birthday, February 22.[1] On January 1, 1971, the federal holiday was shifted to the third Monday in February by the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. This date places it between February 15 and 21, which makes the name "Washington's Birthday" a misnomer, since it never lands on Washington's actual birthday, February 22." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_day> SignatureMy favourite # 30: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZmAgFyVo48> My favourite # 55: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iXyxQ3MYGw> (Overridden, original article had an unwanted f'up) Peter T. Daniels (in alt.usage.english): >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:44:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Don't be ridiculous. Washington's Birthday is February 22 (Gregorian), > and Presidents' Day was observed on Feburary 15. "Washington's Birthday is a United States federal holiday celebrated on the third Monday of February. It is also commonly known as Presidents Day (sometimes spelled as Presidents' Day or President's Day). As Washington's Birthday or Presidents Day, it is also the official name of a concurrent state holiday celebrated on the same day in a number of states. Contents History. Titled Washington's Birthday, a federal holiday honoring George Washington was originally implemented by an Act of Congress in 1880 for government offices in the District of Columbia (20 Stat. 277) and expanded in 1885 to include all federal offices (23 Stat. 516). As the first federal holiday to honor an American citizen, the holiday was celebrated on Washington's actual birthday, February 22.[1] On January 1, 1971, the federal holiday was shifted to the third Monday in February by the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. This date places it between February 15 and 21, which makes the name "Washington's Birthday" a misnomer, since it never lands on Washington's actual birthday, February 22." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_day> SignatureMy favourite # 30: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZmAgFyVo48> My favourite # 55: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iXyxQ3MYGw> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:44:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Don't be ridiculous. Washington's Birthday is February 22 (Gregorian), >and Presidents' Day was observed on Feburary 15. Your foot's bleeding again. Have the bullet removed before the wound festers. Washington's Birthday was officially shifted to the third Monday in February by the Uniform Monday Holiday Act in 1971. The federal holiday has never officially been changed to President's Day. The change was made 39 years ago. You've never noticed? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:44:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > The change was made 39 years ago. You've never noticed? It was assumed that you would supply the quantifier "some". SignatureJames > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:19:23 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > The change was made 39 years ago. You've never noticed? In some states, we think Lincoln was pretty important, too. We note that you moved to a part of the country where Lincoln is despised. In case you can't remember, Lincoln was born on the very same day as Charles Darwin, and his birthday was a state holiday in each of the two states I lived in before 39 years ago.. >> >Don't be ridiculous. Washington's Birthday is February 22 (Gregorian), >> >and Presidents' Day was observed on Feburary 15. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >We note that you moved to a part of the country where Lincoln is >despised. If there's an anti-Lincoln sentiment in Florida I'm not aware of it. To be honest about it - and I should be when Abe is involved - Lincoln really isn't the subject of many conversations around here. Is your "We" an insular "We" or a Royal "We"? For what group do you speak? New Yorkers, linguists, or generally-considered-to-be-potty cross-posters? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:51:09 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > To be honest about it - and I should be when Abe is involved - Lincoln > really isn't the subject of many conversations around here. That says something right there. > Is your "We" an insular "We" or a Royal "We"? For what group do you > speak? New Yorkers, linguists, or generally-considered-to-be-potty > cross-posters? If you have so much trouble interpreting simple English, why do you hang around a.u.e.? The "we" are the residents of New York and Illinois. >> Is your "We" an insular "We" or a Royal "We"? For what group do you >> speak? New Yorkers, linguists, or generally-considered-to-be-potty >> cross-posters? > >If you have so much trouble interpreting simple English, why do you >hang around a.u.e.? More irony. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:51:09 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > The "we" are the residents of New York and Illinois. Perhaps "generally-considered-to-be-potty cross-posters" goes without saying. SignatureMike. >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:51:09 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >That says something right there. >> Is your "We" an insular "We" or a Royal "We"? For what group do you >> speak? New Yorkers, linguists, or generally-considered-to-be-potty [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >The "we" are the residents of New York and Illinois. What are we missing, then, here in Florida? Is Lincoln a daily conversational topic in New York and down-state Illinois? I know he isn't in Chicago because I lived there. I mean we talked about Lincoln Park, and I lived on Lincoln Park West for a while, but we didn't discuss Abe very often. We could go for months on end without ever bringing Abe into the conversation. There are some people in Springfield and New Salem who talk about Abe frequently, but they are tour guides. And, I am still confused about your usage of "we". "We", to me, means more than one person and "resident of" means where you live. You are a resident of New Jersey, but not a resident of either New York or Illinois, so who's the "we"? Even though you once lived in Illinois, you are not now a resident of Illinois. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> Don't be ridiculous. Washington's Birthday is February 22 (Gregorian), >>>> and Presidents' Day was observed on Feburary 15. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > To be honest about it - and I should be when Abe is involved - Lincoln > really isn't the subject of many conversations around here. Florida is a bit different from the rest of the South in terms of its history--while technically it was a slave state it wasn't admitted to statehood until 20 years or so before the Civil War and prior to that time it had been a refuge for escaped slaves, so Floridians never had much of a problem with Lincoln. > Is your "We" an insular "We" or a Royal "We"? For what group do you > speak? New Yorkers, linguists, or generally-considered-to-be-potty > cross-posters? >In some states, we think Lincoln was pretty important, too. > >We note that you moved to a part of the country where Lincoln is >despised. But that is not the question at hand. >In case you can't remember, Lincoln was born on the very same day as >Charles Darwin, and his birthday was a state holiday in each of the >two states I lived in before 39 years ago.. What this has to do with the federal holiday of Washington's Birthday escapes me. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:51:09 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > What this has to do with the federal holiday of Washington's > Birthday escapes me. There is no longer a Lincoln's Birthday holiday (except, presumably, in Illinois -- just as Patriots' Day is observed in Massachusetts), because Lincoln and Washington were together packaged into Presidents' Day. >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:51:09 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >because Lincoln and Washington were together packaged into Presidents' >Day. No. They weren't, save for perhaps a very few juridictions. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>There is no longer a Lincoln's Birthday holiday (except, presumably, >>in Illinois -- just as Patriots' Day is observed in Massachusetts), >>because Lincoln and Washington were together packaged into Presidents' >>Day. > > No. They weren't, save for perhaps a very few juridictions. California punts on the question, just giving the date (except, interestingly, for Thanksgiving): Cal. Gov. Code 19853. (a) All state employees shall be entitled to the following holidays: January 1, the third Monday in January, the third Monday in February, March 31, the last Monday in May, July 4, the first Monday in September, November 11, Thanksgiving Day, the day after Thanksgiving, December 25, the day chosen by an employee pursuant to Section 19854, and every day appointed by the Governor of this state for a public fast, thanksgiving, or holiday. but the Department of Personnel Administration apparently calls it "Presidents Birthday". http://www.dpa.ca.gov/personnel-policies/holidays.htm SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Any programming problem can be 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |solved by adding another layer of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |indirection. Any performance |problem can be solved by removing kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |one. (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >>There is no longer a Lincoln's Birthday holiday (except, presumably, > >>in Illinois -- just as Patriots' Day is observed in Massachusetts), [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > http://www.dpa.ca.gov/personnel-policies/holidays.htm So only people born on the third Monday in February can be President of California? What happened on March 31? Why couldn't they say "the fourth Thursday and Friday of November"? >> California punts on the question, just giving the date (except, >> interestingly, for Thanksgiving): [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > What happened on March 31? César Chávez was born. > Why couldn't they say "the fourth Thursday and Friday of November"? What makes you think they couldn't? A better question would be "Why didn't they?" SignatureEvan 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/ > >> California punts on the question, just giving the date (except, > >> interestingly, for Thanksgiving): [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > What makes you think they couldn't? A better question would be "Why > didn't they?" What makes you think that "Why couldn't they?" isn't a perfectly normal way to ask that question? > > but the Department of Personnel Administration apparently calls it > > "Presidents Birthday". > > http://www.dpa.ca.gov/personnel-policies/holidays.htm > So only people born on the third Monday in February can be President > of California? In yet another attempt to bring this thread back on the original topic (the Usher calendar reform proposal): Yes, the only official name of the mid-February federal holiday is Washington's Birthday. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, Washington's Birthday can never fall on his actual birthday (which was February 22nd Gregorian, though when Washington was born Britain and its colonies were still on the Julian calendar). Many school districts take off two Mondays in February, one each for Lincoln and Washington. (They can afford to do this since the school year consists of only 180 days, not ~250 work days like most businesses.) Usually, the first one is called "Lincoln's Birthday," while the second is called "Presidents' Day." This year, however, a certain local school district decided to take off February 15th and 22nd, calling the former "Presidents' Day" and the latter "Washington's Birthday" -- since it falls on the actual date of his birthday. Notice that in the Usher reform plan, the federal holiday would fall in the February 16th-22nd range, rather than the current 15th-21st range. Thus the Usher Washington's Birthday can actually fall on Washington's birthday, unlike the current holiday. Moving from California to Louisiana, it was pointed out that many Louisianans take Shrove Tuesday (i.e., Mardi Gras) off. But this is awkward since after the weekend of Saturday and Sunday, there's a single day of work on Monday before the Tuesday holiday. In the Usher plan, Mardi Gras, being 47 days before the Usher Easter (April 5th-11th), would fall in the February 17th-23rd range -- in other words, it's always one day after Usher Wasington's Birthday. So Louisianans would always have a full four-day weekend under the Usher plan (Sat-Sun-Washington-Mardi Gras). > What happened on March 31? I believe someone else already answered this by saying that it's the birthday of labor leader Cesar Chavez. Notice that the two major public university systems in California (UC and CSU) no longer tie their spring breaks to Easter (as is traditional). Instead, spring break in these two university systems is now the week that contains Chavez Day. This reflects a current trend across the nation (and possibly the globe) of having spring break appear at a fixed point in the term, rather than tied to Easter with its five-week swing. Under the Usher plan, Easter appears at a fixed point in the term, and so many schools and universities might return to having spring break contain Easter if we were to use the Usher plan. I'm not sure what California would do, since the latest Usher Easter is eleven days after Chavez Day. Of course, since Washington's Birthday isn't always on February 22nd, Chavez's Birthday need not always be observed on March 31st. The observed holiday might fall on the Monday after Palm Sunday, so that the spring break can always include both Chavez Day and Holy Week. > Yes, the only official name of the mid-February federal > holiday is Washington's Birthday. As was pointed out > earlier in the thread, Washington's Birthday can never > fall on his actual birthday (which was February 22nd > Gregorian, though when Washington was born Britain and > its colonies were still on the Julian calendar). Strange, isn't it? I can't understand why Lincoln got screwed! > Many school districts take off two Mondays in February, > one each for Lincoln and Washington. Obviously practice varies here; I don't remember two Mondays off. > Notice that in the Usher reform plan, the federal > holiday would fall in the February 16th-22nd range, > rather than the current 15th-21st range. Thus the > Usher Washington's Birthday can actually fall on > Washington's birthday, unlike the current holiday. OK, I've added this to my calendar. I said originally that all holidays that are now taken on Monday etc. should be fixed to a particular week of my calendar. > Moving from California to Louisiana, it was pointed > out that many Louisianans take Shrove Tuesday (i.e., [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Louisianans would always have a full four-day weekend > under the Usher plan (Sat-Sun-Washington-Mardi Gras). That's right but it's not terribly surprising because they are, after all, tied to the same week in that case. I suppose it would matter less outside Louisiana, but at least it wouldn't hurt. That was the point of me using the Christian holidays, and I can't understand why Peter Daniels wouldn't understand that. > Notice that the two major public university systems in > California (UC and CSU) no longer tie their spring [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > spring break appear at a fixed point in the term, > rather than tied to Easter with its five-week swing. It's also because US universities have changed to the semester system that they generally want their break during March, to be more nearly toward the middle of the semester. > Under the Usher plan, Easter appears at a fixed point > in the term, and so many schools and universities might > return to having spring break contain Easter if we were > to use the Usher plan. I'm not sure. Perhaps it is feared that there would be too much rowdy and chaotic behavior if all college students in the country got off at the same time. > I'm not sure what California > would do, since the latest Usher Easter is eleven days [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that the spring break can always include both Chavez > Day and Holy Week. This is correct; if Chavez Day is to be observed as an official holiday, I suppose there shouldn't be a problem fixing it to Monday. Andrew Usher > > Yes, the only official name of the mid-February federal > > holiday is Washington's Birthday. As was pointed out [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Obviously practice varies here; I don't remember two Mondays off. In my school, Lincoln's Birthday was Fathers Day, and if Washington's Birthday was a holiday, it was observed on February 22 (as everywhere else). > > Notice that in the Usher reform plan, the federal > > holiday would fall in the February 16th-22nd range, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > point of me using the Christian holidays, and I can't understand why > Peter Daniels wouldn't understand that. You, as a secular (non)authority, have no business meddling in setting the days or dates of religious observations. I'm not sure what it is you think I didn't understand. > > Notice that the two major public university systems in > > California (UC and CSU) no longer tie their spring [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that they generally want their break during March, to be more nearly > toward the middle of the semester. "Changed"? > You, as a secular (non)authority, have no business meddling in setting > the days or dates of religious observations. Agreed. Leave the religious holidays to the religious. SignatureWell there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade > > You, as a secular (non)authority, have no business meddling in setting > > the days or dates of religious observations. > > Agreed. Leave the religious holidays to the religious. How about leaving defending them to the religious? I haven't seen anyone oppose me for religious reasons. And the only reason I proposed it is because of the secular use of the holidays. Andrew Usher Peter T. Daniels filted: >> =A0 =A0 Cal. Gov. Code 19853. =A0(a) All state employees shall be entitle= >d [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Why couldn't they say "the fourth Thursday and Friday of November"? If November starts on a Friday, the fourth Friday comes before the fourth Thursday....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > There is no longer a Lincoln's Birthday holiday (except, presumably, > in Illinois -- just as Patriots' Day is observed in Massachusetts), > because Lincoln and Washington were together packaged into Presidents' > Day. This is not at all correct. In fact, nothing you said there is correct in any meaningful way. Signature<jshock221> a freudian slip is when you say one thing but you're really thinking about a mother. <Spadgeroonie> no, a freudian slip is sexy underwear your mother wears >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:51:09 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >because Lincoln and Washington were together packaged into Presidents' >Day. By whom? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>>> There is no such holiday as "President's Day" to US government >>>>> offices. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Don't be ridiculous. Washington's Birthday is February 22 (Gregorian), > and Presidents' Day was observed on Feburary 15. Sorry, that's not the way it works. In case you did not read what the Feds have at http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2010.asp here is what it says about the holiday that was celebrated on the 15th of February this year: This holiday is designated as "Washington's Birthday" in section 6103(a) of title 5 of the United States Code, which is the law that specifies holidays for Federal employees. Though other institutions such as state and local governments and private businesses may use other names, it is our policy to always refer to holidays by the names designated in the law. Maybe that's not the way it should be, but the government moves in mysterious ways, innit? SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>>> There is no such holiday as "President's Day" to US government >>>>>> offices. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Sorry, that's not the way it works. May I respectfully suggest that you stop rattling his cage? You're dealing here with ... well, he's not exactly a troll, but someone who has no ability to acknowledge his mistakes. The end result is boring for everyone looking on. I don't doubt that you're right, Skitt. In fact, I'm pretty certain that you're right. In the end, though, there's no entertainment to be had, and certainly no enlightment, from poking a stick at someone whose responses have become totally predictable. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:44:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Don't be ridiculous. Washington's Birthday is February 22 (Gregorian), >and Presidents' Day was observed on Feburary 15. You need to see the site that someone cited back there somewhere. The Federal holiday is officially Washington's Birthday, but is celebrated on a Monday. There was a move once to create a Presidents' Day holiday, but it wasn't passed. Google for - presidents day - abd see for yourself. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:56:25 -0500 in alt.usage.english, tony cooper >> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > in some states. Certainly businesses think there is one in their > sales advertisements. so does the Post Office. /BAH > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:56:25 -0500 in alt.usage.english, tony cooper > <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There is no such holiday as "President's Day" to US government offices. > http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2010.asp While that is a true statement, it does not alter the fact that the post office was closed on that date. > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:56:25 -0500 in alt.usage.english, tony cooper > > <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote, > >> As far as I can tell, the only employers that are closed on > >> President's Day are government offices, schools, and banks. To the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > While that is a true statement, it does not alter the fact that the post > office was closed on that date. Welcome to the world of a.u.e. nitpickery. >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:56:25 -0500 in alt.usage.english, tony cooper >> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > While that is a true statement, it does not alter the fact that the post > office was closed on that date. And some businesses considered it as a paid holiday. /BAH > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:56:25 -0500 in alt.usage.english, tony cooper > <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There is no such holiday as "President's Day" to US government offices. > http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2010.asp True, but quite a few states do have "Presidents' Day" and those government offices are closed. Signature<jshock221> a freudian slip is when you say one thing but you're really thinking about a mother. <Spadgeroonie> no, a freudian slip is sexy underwear your mother wears >>>>>> Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com>: >>>>>>>> But I thought that for most people the whole point of Easter is that [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Orangemen's Day as being August 5. I didn't learn what it commemorated > until I'd left for college, and was not happy. 5 August must have been the celebration of the Battle of Otterburn. SignatureJames > >>>>>> Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com>: > >>>>>>>> But I thought that for most people the whole point of Easter is that > >>>>>>>> they get time off work. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > 5 August must have been the celebration of the Battle of Otterburn. Was that some sort of triumph of the Protestants over the locals? It might have been the only Scotch-Irish congregation in the city, since one fellow came all the way from Staten Island every Sunday. >> Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com>: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > In NYC, parking regulations are suspended for just about anyone's > religious holidays. "Suspended" = "treated as Sunday". Alas, there were many parking meters in NYC that require feeding on Sundays. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > So I now understand. Here in England, Friday and Monday are holidays, > and school terms fit around them. That's the problem with Easter. I > think it's fair to say that many people here would be happy if they > fixed the dates of the public holidays (e.g. second weekend in April) > and allowed the holy day to shift as it will. I don't if or why > disconnecting them would matter to anyone. Indeed, and my calendar would accomplish the same thing for Easter weekend as was done for Whit Monday. Andrew Usher >> John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com>: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > not in the US, at least not in my state. Are you saying that Easter is not a holiday in your state? SignatureRob Bannister On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:01:15 +0800, Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in <news:7ue3asF7eoU4@mid.individual.net> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Feb 19, 11:25 am, Mike Barnes >> <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote: [...] >>> But I thought that for most people the whole point of >>> Easter is that they get time off work. >> not in the US, at least not in my state. > Are you saying that Easter is not a holiday in your state? He's saying that people don't get time off work on account of it. Which is doubtless true; I don't, either. Brian In sci.lang Brian M. Scott <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote in <71abjatraoiv$.22pibfupt3i9.dlg@40tude.net>: : On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:01:15 +0800, Robert Bannister : <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in : <news:7ue3asF7eoU4@mid.individual.net> in : sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: :>> On Feb 19, 11:25 am, Mike Barnes :>> <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote: : [...] :>>> But I thought that for most people the whole point of :>>> Easter is that they get time off work. :>> not in the US, at least not in my state. :> Are you saying that Easter is not a holiday in your state? : He's saying that people don't get time off work on account : of it. Which is doubtless true; I don't, either. yes. it is not an official holiday, but there is a slowing down of bussiness, as some businesses give employees vacation or have a reduced employee load. I am not a Christian, and while in college I had asked why we were not eating at the regular cafetaria during. the woman in charge, a Puerto Rican, answered in shock: "it's Good Friday!" : Brian >> [...] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > we were not eating at the regular cafetaria during. the woman in > charge, a Puerto Rican, answered in shock: "it's Good Friday!" AM Klein: "The advantages of living with two cultures Strike one at every turn, Especially when one finds a notice in an office building 'This elevator will not run on Ascension Day'; Or reads in the Montreal Star: 'Tomorrow being the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, There will be no garbage collection in the city'; ...". > 'Tomorrow being the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, > There will be no garbage collection in the city'; ...". The idea of a Feast of the Immaculate Conception makes me lose my appetite. SignatureRob Bannister >> 'Tomorrow being the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, >> There will be no garbage collection in the city'; ...". > >The idea of a Feast of the Immaculate Conception makes me lose my appetite. Did you have to mention it? The four noxious, in that they have nothing to do with English usage, newsgroups ignored. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > "The advantages of living with two cultures > Strike one at every turn, > Especially when one finds a notice in an office building > 'This elevator will not run on Ascension Day'; LOL! Andrew Usher > AM Klein: >> > "The advantages of living with two cultures > Strike one at every turn, > Especially when one finds a notice in an office building > 'This elevator will not run on Ascension Day'; Presumably, it takes one trip and gets stuck at the top. SignatureEvan 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 > > "The advantages of living with two cultures > > Strike one at every turn, > > Especially when one finds a notice in an office building > > 'This elevator will not run on Ascension Day'; > > Presumably, it takes one trip and gets stuck at the top. Waiting for Descension Day? (Why isn't there a word 'decension'?) Andrew Usher > > > "The advantages of living with two cultures > > > Strike one at every turn, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (Why isn't there a word 'decension'?) Because there's no need for a word to contrast with "descent" with a special meaning. You're free to refer to the Incarnation as the Descension, if you choose to be even further incomprehensible. >> (Why isn't there a word 'decension'?) >> > Because there's no need for a word to contrast with "descent" with a > special meaning. There is, of course, a word "descension", and has been for some centuries, making the above rationale for its non-existence somewhat amusing. Oy! Denizens of sci.astro! Wakey wakey! This is (in part) your technical terminology. On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:56:23 +0000, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> wrote in <news:IU.D20100305.T155636.P9584.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost> in sci.math,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> (Why isn't there a word 'decension'?) >> Because there's no need for a word to contrast with "descent" with a >> special meaning. > There is, of course, a word "descension", and has been for some > centuries, making the above rationale for its non-existence somewhat > amusing. Oy! Denizens of sci.astro! Wakey wakey! This is (in part) > your technical terminology. But that's the wrong descension. Brian On Mar 5, 10:56 am, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: > >> (Why isn't there a word 'decension'?) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > amusing. Oy! Denizens of sci.astro! Wakey wakey! This is (in part) > your technical terminology. I misread this as 'declension'. > On Mar 5, 10:56 am, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- > newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I misread this as 'declension'. So did I, but I quickly realised it didn't fit the declension patterns in my grammar book. SignatureRob Bannister >>> "The advantages of living with two cultures >>> Strike one at every turn, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > (Why isn't there a word 'decension'?) You mean, "Why did the word 'descension' die out?" I don't know. You can still hear it every time Henry IV Part 2 is performed. There's no quotation in the OED after 1881. SignatureJames > In sci.lang Brian M. Scott <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote in <71abjatraoiv$.22pibfupt3i9.dlg@40tude.net>: > : On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:01:15 +0800, Robert Bannister [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > we were not eating at the regular cafetaria during. the woman in > charge, a Puerto Rican, answered in shock: "it's Good Friday!" Thanks. I had read Peter D's answer first anyway, which answered the question. I find it mildly surprising that the authorities didn't find some excuse for a Spring holiday, but maybe you have too many already - or, in light of 24/7 shopping, some people have holidays. SignatureRob Bannister >>> John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com>: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Are you saying that Easter is not a holiday in your state? In the US, the is really no concept of "official holidays". There is no law that requires any day to be a paid non-work day for anyone. Instead, there are laws that require employers to have a fair holiday policy that does not discriminate against any religion. There are also specific local laws that require certain business to be closed on certain days (e.g., liquor stores on Sundays). Other than these laws, basically every organization sets its own holidays. Thus, a "federal holiday" merely means that it is a holiday for the federal government offices, post offices, etc. Likewise, a "state holiday" means only that it is a holiday for state government offices. Each school district (typically one per town) sets its own holiday schedules, which may or may not following the state holiday schedule. As an example, the school district of town where I live has both Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur as holidays even though the town Jewish population is probably less than 5%. OTOH Good Friday and Ascension Day are rarely holidays by themselves, but the school board would try to schedule the 1-2 week "Spring Recess" to include both of them. (For 2010, it is a 10 day stretch that starts on Good Friday). Larger organizations in the US typically has some paid "personal days" so that people can use take them for religious or other reasons without explanation. Btw, Good Friday is a Wall Street holiday by tradition. The exchanges are closed. Most firms in the related businesses have a holiday. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >> Are you saying that Easter is not a holiday in your state? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >than these laws, basically every organization sets its own >holidays. In any case, as a religious holiday Easter can't be a holiday anywhere in the USA. Since it's always on Sunday, this has little impact. >Thus, a "federal holiday" merely means that it is a holiday >for the federal government offices, post offices, etc. >Likewise, a "state holiday" means only that it is a holiday >for state government offices. Each school district (typically >one per town) sets its own holiday schedules, which may or >may not following the state holiday schedule. Here in Tucson the local school district does not take the President's Day holiday but gives the Thursday and Friday of Rodeo Week off. >As an example, >the school district of town where I live has both Rosh [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >"Spring Recess" to include both of them. (For 2010, it >is a 10 day stretch that starts on Good Friday). Constitutionally, public schools and offices in America cannot have religious holidays. Many school districts will try to schedule necessarily secular holidays to coincide with religious holidays. For instance, there may be a "Spring Break Holiday" which conveniently is timed to cover Passover, Good Friday and Easter. This gets tricky when Easter falls particularly early or late on the calendar. I'm not clear on how a public school district can have Rosh Hoshanah or Yom Kippur holidays. What town is that? And, just in case someone was going to ask, Christmas has been adjudicated to be a secular holiday. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > In any case, as a religious holiday Easter can't be a holiday > anywhere in the USA. Since it's always on Sunday, this has little > impact. Some states do observe religious holidays. Aside from the dubious secularity of Christmas (a federal holiday, as well as a state holiday in most if not all states), there's Mardi Gras/Shrove Tuesday (in Louisiana and parts of Florida and Alabama), Good Friday (in many states), and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur (officially recognized as "optional holidays" by Texas). See, for instance, http://www.in.gov/sos/2369.htm or http://www.ct.gov/ctportal/cwp/view.asp?a=843&q=246434 for examples where Good Friday is clearly recognized as a state holiday under that name; there are several more states that do likewise. On Feb 22, 3:22 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > In any case, as a religious holiday Easter can't be a holiday > > anywhere in the USA. Since it's always on Sunday, this has little [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > where Good Friday is clearly recognized as a state holiday under that > name; there are several more states that do likewise. I just want to emphasize this--there are clearly many places in the US where Christmas, Shrove Tuesday, Rosh Hashanah, Good Friday, Yom Kippur, and other religious holidays are recognized by the country and/ or state. While I happen to believe that's antithetical to the Constitution and the nation's goals, it's also clearly the truth, and that many people in this thread claim religious holidays aren't allowed in the US confuses me. "sjdevnull@yahoo.com" <sjdevnull@yahoo.com>: >I just want to emphasize this--there are clearly many places in the US >where Christmas, Shrove Tuesday, Rosh Hashanah, Good Friday, Yom [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that many people in this thread claim religious holidays aren't >allowed in the US confuses me. It was starting to confuse me also, but what you've written makes perfect sense. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England On Feb 23, 1:38 am, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 3:22 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > that many people in this thread claim religious holidays aren't > allowed in the US confuses me.- Did anyone say they're not _allowed_, as opposed to not _acknowledged_ by secular authorities? They are even _accommodated_ by secular authorities -- I already cited the extravagant waiving of parking restructions in New York City. > On Feb 23, 1:38 am, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Did anyone say they're not _allowed_, as opposed to not _acknowledged_ > by secular authorities? Quoted above: "In any case, as a religious holiday Easter can't be a holiday anywhere in the USA." That post went on to say "Constitutionally, public schools and offices in America cannot have religious holidays. Many school districts will try to schedule necessarily secular holidays to coincide with religious holidays. For instance, there may be a "Spring Break Holiday" which conveniently is timed to cover Passover, Good Friday and Easter." What I'm saying is that they _are_ acknowledged as official holidays by the state (or in some cases local) government--"Good Friday", for instance, is an official state holiday in many states, under that name. >> On Feb 23, 1:38 am, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >by the state (or in some cases local) government--"Good Friday", for >instance, is an official state holiday in many states, under that name. "Good Friday is not an official holiday in the United States. Regular services will continue according the schedule in some areas, including Toledo, Ohio, where the citys refuse will be collected during its regular schedule. However, many financial markets and some businesses are closed on Good Friday. "Good Friday is a state holiday in some states such as Hawaii, where city and state offices are closed and some forms of public transport (eg. buses) run on the state holiday schedule. In some areas, such as Perry County in Tennessee, Good Friday is a school holiday. Good Friday is a holiday designated by the governor as a day of fasting and prayer in Connecticut. "In accordance with state law, Indiana state employees are given a day off on Good Friday, a religious holiday. In 1999, in the case of Bridenbaugh v O'Bannon, an Indiana state employee sued the governor for giving state employees Good Friday as a day off. The US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiff, stating that the government could give state employees a paid day off when that day is a religious holiday, including Good Friday, but only so long as the state can provide a valid secular purpose that coincides with the obvious religious purpose of the holiday." So Good Friday is certainly not "an official state holiday in many states, under that name", but really only Hawai'i. In the Indiana case, where an individual state employee could be given a paid day off, the action was only constitutional "so long as the state can provide a valid secular purpose that coincides with the obvious religious purpose of the holiday." This would have required the plaintiff to seek a re-trial with the lower court mandated to find a secular reason for the day off. I would guess that the plaintiff has simply given up (this would be a far more coslty trial than a simple constitutional challenge). Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:53:46 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > holiday. Good Friday is a holiday designated by the governor as a > day of fasting and prayer in Connecticut. Tennessee actually recognizes it as a state holiday. http://www.tennesseeanytime.org/about/holidays.html (that's the Tennessee state official web site, despite the goofy name). > "In accordance with state law, Indiana state employees are given > a day off on Good Friday, a religious holiday. In 1999, in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So Good Friday is certainly not "an official state holiday in > many states, under that name", but really only Hawai'i. The above ruling, of course, left it in place in Indiana. http://www.nd.gov/tax/misc/state-holidays.html "State Holidays...April 10 - Good Friday" http://www.state.nj.us/nj/about/facts/holidays/ "State Holidays....Good Friday 04/02/2010 Friday" http://www.ic.nc.gov/ncic/pages/2008cal.htm "2009 N.C. State Government Holiday Schedule...Good Friday Friday April 10, 2009" along with a bunch of others. 11 total states, by my count. >On Feb 22, 3:22 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >that many people in this thread claim religious holidays aren't >allowed in the US confuses me. Just to clarify: anything is "allowed" until an action is brought in a federal or state case to have it forbidden. The courts will do nothing unless some sort of complaint is filed, and even then the diecision will usually apply only to the case at hand. Generally, the courts do find against such religious holidays. I have trouble thinking of New Orleans' Mardi Gras as a religious holiday, since it is historically an occasion for indulging in assorted secular behaviors prior to the imposition of the rigors of Lent. Googling< I see that the only religious-related state holidays in Louisiana are Mardi Gras (see above), Christmas and Thanksgiving. Per http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/yom-kippur "Yom Kippur is not a federal public holiday in the United States. However, many Jewish businesses, organizations and schools may be closed on this holiday and the streets around synagogues may be busy. "It is an optional holiday for state government employees in Texas. A chief judge of any judicial circuit in Florida can designate Yom Kippur as a legal holiday for court employees within the states judicial circuit. Some states, such as North Carolina, try to accommodate a government employee's request to be away from work for certain religious holiday observances, such as Yom Kippur." And http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/jewish/rosh-hashana "Rosh Hashana is a public holiday in Israel. It is not a nationwide public holiday in countries such as Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom or the United States. However, Rosh Hashana can be taken as an optional holiday in Texas and could be designated as a legal holiday for court employees in Florida's judicial circuit in the United States. Moreover, Jewish organizations may be closed or have restricted opening hours to allow special events to be held." And http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/shrove-tuesday "Mardi Gras is a state holiday in Louisiana. It is also marked as a holiday in the Baldwin and Mobile counties only in Alabama. Governing authorities of any municipality or county in Mississippi can declare this event as a holiday to replace any legal holiday . . ." So the number of places where these religious holidays are legal holidays is quite limited, and in some cases could be declared a holiday by some local jurisdictions. (note that Shrove Tuesday is not a legal holiday in Louisiana). I suspect that any such lingering religious holidays have simply not been challenged in court, probably because no one affected wants to be seen as a meany-head. Nevertheless, the consitutionality of such holidays, i.e., their legality, seems dubious. When I was a tad, circa WW2, Good Friday was a holiday in my public school system, and probably was in many other places. We also started each day with the Lord's Prayer. No more. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Googling< I see that the only religious-related state holidays in > Louisiana are Mardi Gras (see above), Christmas and Thanksgiving. http://www.louisiana.gov/Government/For_State_Employees/ "Louisiana Revised Statute 1:55 declares days of public rest and legal holidays... Holiday Always falls on Date in 2010 Good Friday Friday before Easter Friday, April 2" There are another 10 states where Good Friday is also a holiday. In sci.astro message <4c31e5b7-4b88-4b66-89d6-91d3061ae3eb@b18g2000vbl.g ooglegroups.com>, Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:04:58, "sjdevnull@yahoo.com" <sjdevnull@yahoo.com> posted: >> Googling< I see that the only religious-related state holidays in >> Louisiana are Mardi Gras (see above), Christmas and Thanksgiving. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Holiday Always falls on Date in 2010 >Good Friday Friday before Easter Friday, April 2" For that, Louisiana must have access to a definition of the date of Easter valid in US or Louisiana law. Where is it formally to be found? Signature(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc. On Feb 24, 4:20 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In sci.astro message <4c31e5b7-4b88-4b66-89d6-91d3061ae...@b18g2000vbl.g > ooglegroups.com>, Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:04:58, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > For that, Louisiana must have access to a definition of the date of > Easter valid in US or Louisiana law. Where is it formally to be found? The statute is linked on the page above; it makes no attempt to define when Easter (or Good Friday) is. I know some states leave it up to the Governor to declare the date of some of the more complex holidays each year. The law in question is at http://www.legis.louisiana.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=74097 ; you can see that Good Friday is the only holiday they make no attempt to pin down: "§55. Days of public rest, legal holidays, and half-holidays A. The following shall be days of public rest and legal holidays and half-holidays: (1) The following shall be days of public rest and legal holidays: Sundays; January 1, New Year's Day; January 8, Battle of New Orleans; the third Monday in January, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Birthday; January 19, Robert E. Lee Day; third Monday in February, Washington's Birthday; Good Friday; the last Monday in May, National Memorial Day; June 3, Confederate Memorial Day; July 4, Independence Day; August 30, Huey P. Long Day; the first Monday in September, Labor Day; the second Monday in October, Christopher Columbus Day; November 1, All Saints' Day; November 11, Veterans' Day; the fourth Thursday in November, Thanksgiving Day; December 25, Christmas Day..." This exchange was posted about a week ago. >>>> ... I see that the only religious-related state holidays in >>>> Louisiana are Mardi Gras (see above), Christmas and Thanksgiving. >>> "Louisiana Revised Statute 1:55 declares days of public rest and legal >>> holidays... >>> Holiday Always falls on Date in 2010 >>> Good Friday Friday before Easter Friday, April 2" >> For that, Louisiana must have access to a definition of the date of >> Easter valid in US or Louisiana law. > The statute is linked on the page above; it makes no attempt to define > when Easter (or Good Friday) is. I know some states leave it up to > the Governor to declare the date of some of the more complex holidays > each year. I've been meaning to note that the date of Easter was defined in the British Empire by the same act that mandated the switch to the Gregorian calendar in 1752. (Specifically, it's defined by tables that form a schedule to the act.) As far as I know the same algorithm is still used throughout the former Empire, so I imagine that no jurisdiction has seen fit to override this act with their own legislation, and therefore it answers the question for those areas that were British territory before they became part of the US, for example. However, that would *not* include Louisiana. SignatureMark Brader "I like to think of [this] as self-explanatory." Toronto "I hope *I* think of [it] that way." msb@vex.net -- Donald Westlake: "Trust Me On This" My text in this article is in the public domain. > As far as I know the same algorithm is still used throughout the former Empire Well, in teh US at least thre are two easters every year. the one that 99.999% of the population knows about, and the one the wackos from the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrate. See, those Eastern Orthodox refuse to acknowledge the Gregorian calendar, so they still are using the Julian calendar to calculate Easter. So their Easter is a week or four off. I guess if you were Eastern Orthodox in Louisiana you could make this an issue. Oddly, the Eastern Orthodox still do Christmas on the 25th of December. SignatureI WILL NOT AIM FOR THE HEAD Bart chalkboard Ep. 8F13 >> As far as I know the same algorithm is still used throughout the >> former Empire [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Oddly, the Eastern Orthodox still do Christmas on the 25th of December. Depends which Eastern Orthodox you're talking about. The Orthodox Church is autocephalous - i.e. it does not have a single governing body, but is or can be different in every country. This may be complicated in places like the USA or Australia where, in addition to having a local church leader, there may also be Greek, Russian, Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, etc. Orthodox Churches with their own leaders. SignatureRob Bannister >> Oddly, the Eastern Orthodox still do Christmas on the 25th of December. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >leader, there may also be Greek, Russian, Serbian, Macedonian, >Bulgarian, etc. Orthodox Churches with their own leaders. My step-uncle was married to a woman who was, I believe, Russian Orthodox, and she celebrated Christmas about two weeks after the rest of the family. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> Oddly, the Eastern Orthodox still do Christmas on the 25th of December. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Orthodox, and she celebrated Christmas about two weeks after the > rest of the family. Precisely, although like Easter, it does vary from year to year, but ten days later is par. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> Oddly, the Eastern Orthodox still do Christmas on the 25th of December. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Precisely, although like Easter, it does vary from year to year, but ten > days later is par. The Russian Orthodox Christmas is not one of those "moveable" feasts which vary from year to year like Easter. It's based on the Julian calendar and has been falling on January 7th on our Gregorian calendar since 1901 and will continue to do so through 2100 >>>>> Oddly, the Eastern Orthodox still do Christmas on the 25th of >>>>> December. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > calendar and has been falling on January 7th on our Gregorian calendar > since 1901 and will continue to do so through 2100 Thanks. I was never quite sure about Christmas except that I knew it never occurred on the 25th December. I realise that Easter is a bit different, because it's not just a different calendar, but a slightly different calculation. SignatureRob Bannister >> The Russian Orthodox Christmas is not one of those "moveable" feasts >> which vary from year to year like Easter. It's based on the Julian [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Thanks. I was never quite sure about Christmas except that I knew it >never occurred on the 25th December. Isn't it still 25 December on the old calendar? It seem to be a relic of the Bolshevik adoption of the Gregorian calendar, whereby the October Revolution is celebrated in November. If so, the holiday should drift later at a steady rate as the old calendar fails to adjust to leap years. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Googling< I see that the only religious-related state holidays in > Louisiana are Mardi Gras (see above), Christmas and Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving is a religious-related holiday? Which religion would this be? SignatureRob Bannister >> Googling< I see that the only religious-related state holidays in >> Louisiana are Mardi Gras (see above), Christmas and Thanksgiving. > > Thanksgiving is a religious-related holiday? Which religion would this be? Ecumenical? ;-) SignaturePhysics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it. [Richard Feynman] >> Googling< I see that the only religious-related state holidays in >> Louisiana are Mardi Gras (see above), Christmas and Thanksgiving. > >Thanksgiving is a religious-related holiday? Which religion would this be? Whichever ones thank God and pray to him. At least that's what the presidential and gubernatorial proclamations seem to always say. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> Googling< I see that the only religious-related state holidays in >>> Louisiana are Mardi Gras (see above), Christmas and Thanksgiving. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the presidential and gubernatorial proclamations seem to always > say. The religious people, and that would include all of the early settlers of America and almost certainly all of your public leaders, will bring religion into any formal occasion. This does not make it an official rite of Christianity. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> Googling< I see that the only religious-related state holidays in >>>> Louisiana are Mardi Gras (see above), Christmas and Thanksgiving. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > religion into any formal occasion. This does not make it an official > rite of Christianity. Does it have to be "an official rite of Christianity" before one can call it religion-related? Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr Tak To <takto@alum.mit.edu>: >>The religious people, and that would include all of the early settlers >>of America and almost certainly all of your public leaders, will bring [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Does it have to be "an official rite of Christianity" before >one can call it religion-related? Religion has to be inherent rather than incidental. Some people like to have sandwiches etc available at meetings. Indeed, many consider what's provided to be rather more important than the business of the meeting. The sandwiches might even be discussed at the meeting. But that doesn't make the meeting "food related". SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >>>>> Googling< I see that the only religious-related state holidays in >>>>> Louisiana are Mardi Gras (see above), Christmas and Thanksgiving. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Tak An interesting point. I think I'd argue that many aspects of even official rites of Christianity (and possibly other religions) may be 'religion-related' in the sense that they were originally associated with or inspired by a religion, but that they are not now, in any meaningful way, religious holidays or customs. For example, there's nothing particularly religious about having a big family dinner on a long weekend in the fall, or even being grateful to nothing or no one in particular that you all made it through another year, any more than spending vast sums of money in shopping malls at the busiest time of year is really a way to celebrate the religious holiday of Christmas. SignatureCheryl >>>>> Googling< I see that the only religious-related state holidays in >>>>> Louisiana are Mardi Gras (see above), Christmas and Thanksgiving. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Does it have to be "an official rite of Christianity" before > one can call it religion-related? In this context, I think it does have to be part of the calendar of whichever religion we're talking about - which may be quite different from a government's calendar. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> Googling< I see that the only religious-related state holidays in >>>> Louisiana are Mardi Gras (see above), Christmas and Thanksgiving. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >religion into any formal occasion. This does not make it an official >rite of Christianity. I wasn't aware that the subject was official rites; I thought it was religious nature. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> Googling< I see that the only religious-related state holidays in >>>> Louisiana are Mardi Gras (see above), Christmas and Thanksgiving. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > religion into any formal occasion. This does not make it an official > rite of Christianity. Rob, we should start a movement to have Grand Final day declared a religious holiday. There's more praying goes on than any other day of the year, not to mention the business with the chicken gizzards... SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >>>>> Googling< I see that the only religious-related state holidays in >>>>> Louisiana are Mardi Gras (see above), Christmas and Thanksgiving. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > religious holiday. There's more praying goes on than any other day of > the year, not to mention the business with the chicken gizzards... I'll second that. If religious people keep sticking their heads up, we could at least promote a religion that has some popular support. Not that I'm a supporter of AR - quite the opposite - but I'm at least an observer of the dominant religion, and I can probably claim affiliate status as a one-time member of the anti-football league. If Americans - present company excluded, of course - continue to insist on an in-your-face approach to their Christianity, we should certainly demonstrate that not every nation has the same religion. My SO is coming over to dinner on Wednesday, and I hadn't yet decided on the menu. I'll buy some chicken gizzards tomorrow. Not for the meal, you understand ... well, you understand, and it's not necessary to explain it to anyone else. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. [Deleted <sci.lang> & <sci.astro>] Peter Moylan wrote: [...] > My SO is coming over to dinner on Wednesday, and I hadn't yet decided > on the menu. I'll buy some chicken gizzards tomorrow. Not for the > meal, you understand ... well, you understand, and it's not necessary > to explain it to anyone else. Chicken gizzards? Kinky, kinky! Will she be wearing socks? Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ > [Deleted <sci.lang> & <sci.astro>] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Chicken gizzards? Kinky, kinky! > Will she be wearing socks? I'll try to remember to notice; but, as you have already seen, I have a poor memory for socks. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>>> Googling< I see that the only religious-related state holidays in >>>>> Louisiana are Mardi Gras (see above), Christmas and Thanksgiving. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > religious holiday. There's more praying goes on than any other day of > the year, not to mention the business with the chicken gizzards... Hmm, I have a problem with a game that requires three umpires when there are 100 000 people sitting all round the ground who know much better what is going on - even more if you count those watching on TV. However, I do not doubt that it is a very important religious rite that is probably observed by more people than Easter Sunday in our corner of the globe. SignatureRob Bannister >>> Are you saying that Easter is not a holiday in your state? >> In the US, the is really no concept of "official holidays". [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > I'm not clear on how a public school district can have Rosh > Hoshanah or Yom Kippur holidays. What town is that? Both these days are simply marked as school holidays. No reference to the religion, no explanation what so ever. > And, just in case someone was going to ask, Christmas has been > adjudicated to be a secular holiday. Likewise, Christmas is just part of the "Winter Recess". OTOH. Thanksgiving is still there. I just noticed that for 2011, Good Friday will be a school holiday (and marked as "Good Friday"!). The Monday afterwards is not. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr <snip> > Likewise, Christmas is just part of the "Winter Recess". > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > holiday (and marked as "Good Friday"!). The Monday afterwards > is not. Thanksgiving has a rather odd status, especially, I think, in the US. It could easily be argued that it isn't a religious holiday at all. In some places, 'Thanksgiving' refers to being grateful that the farm produced enough produce to keep everyone free of starvation through the winter, and such gratitude is often expressed to God through religion, but doesn't necessarily have to be so. And in the case of Christianity, it doesn't mark a specific event so much as it's an exaggerated form of the thanksgiving a good Christian offers every day for all kinds of things. When you get to the US version of the holiday, which must surely be one of the biggest Thanksgiving celebrations of those in any country in the western world, the idea of 'Thanks for the harvest' is still there, but so are all kinds of stories about pilgrims founding a new home in the new land and feasting with the locals, so it seems as though the US version is more of a national or cultural holiday than a religious one. I sometimes wonder why so many Canadian primary school teacher seem to think that the Canadian Thanksgiving holiday should be commemorated with colouring sheets showing pilgrim fathers in funny hats. The turkeys I can understand, since most Canadian households will probably serve a turkey, but those guys who came to what is now the US on the Mayflower don't belong in our national mythology. SignatureCheryl Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: ><snip> >> Likewise, Christmas is just part of the "Winter Recess". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Thanksgiving has a rather odd status, especially, I think, in the US. >It could easily be argued that it isn't a religious holiday at all. I never imagined for one moment that Thanksgiving might be considered a religious holiday. Having thought about it for a few minutes, I can't think of any reason at all. But then I don't know much about it, and I'd welcome enlightenment. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > think of any reason at all. But then I don't know much about it, and I'd > welcome enlightenment. Tak To seemed to be including Thanksgiving with Christmas, Good Friday and Easter Monday as religious holidays. That seemed odd to me, particularly as so much of the discussion has been in connection with the US situation. Thanksgiving seems an enormously important event there - I believe they take four-day weekends, which they need, because just about everyone seems to head for their original hometowns. But it never struck me as a particularly religious event, even though many (most?) churches and almost certainly other places of worship hold thanksgiving services. SignatureCheryl >> Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >religious event, even though many (most?) churches and almost certainly >other places of worship hold thanksgiving services. I suppose that at a festival called Thanksgiving people are giving thanks for something. They are presumably thanking someone. Who are they thanking? This says: http://www.thanksgiving-day.org/celebration-united-state.html Thanksgiving Day Celebration in United States Thanksgiving Day is celebrated with lot of fervor and merry-making in America. Celebrated on the fourth Thursday in the month of November every year, it is a time for communal thanksgiving, feeling gratitude, lavish feasts. It is a time to remember the pilgrims. The original pilgrims celebrated the autumn harvest with a feast of thanks. The feast popularly known as the 'First Thanksgiving Day Feast' was held as a gesture of thanks to almighty God. So it was originally a religious event. Ditto in Canada: http://www.thanksgiving-day.org/celebration-canada.html Thanksgiving Day Celebration in Canada People of Canada celebrate Thanksgiving on the second Monday in the month of October every year. It is celebrated to thank the Lord Almighty for a bountiful harvest. We do not have a Thanksgiving day in Britain and Ireland. Some churches (not RC) have Harvest Festival services: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvest_festival In Britain, thanks have been given for successful harvests since pagan times. The celebrations on this day usually include singing hymns, praying, and decorating churches with baskets of fruit and food in the festival known as Harvest Festival, Harvest Home or Harvest Thanksgiving. In British churches, chapels and schools and in Canadian churches, people bring in food from the garden, the allotment or farm. The food is often distributed among the poor and senior citizens of the local community, or used to raise funds for the church, or charity. In the USA, many churches also bring in food from the garden or farm in order to celebrate the harvest. The festival is set for a specific day and has become a national holiday known as Thanksgiving. In both Canada and the USA it has also become a national secular holiday with religious origins, but in Britain it is both a Church festival giving thanks to God for the harvest, and a more secular festival remembered in schools. There is not a fixed date for harvest festival services in Britain. A quick Google suggests that late September and early October are typical. For one (Methodist) preacher's view of the meaning of a modern harvest festival: http://www.wesleycam.org.uk/harvestsermon.php SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net>: >>> Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >>>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >So it was originally a religious event. A religious celebration? Yes. A religious event? No, I don't think so. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net>: >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >A religious celebration? Yes. A religious event? No, I don't think so. That would depend on your definition and use of the word "event", in this context. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net>: >>"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net>: >>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >That would depend on your definition and use of the word "event", in >this context. Of course. In this context I take "religious event" to mean an event with some specific religious significance to adherents in general, not just to those present. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net>: <snip> >>>A religious celebration? Yes. A religious event? No, I don't think so. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >with some specific religious significance to adherents in general, not >just to those present. Rather than a religious event, I see the early Thanksgivings as celebrations of a concept: religious freedom in the New World, something the Pilgrims did not enjoy in the old one. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net>: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > celebrations of a concept: religious freedom in the New World, > something the Pilgrims did not enjoy in the old one. But somewhat influenced by harvest festivals in England. Their desire to be isolated from all outside influences on their lives & religion may have had an effect on the later development of the US, but that early on, it's quite possible they were re-creating and adapting a harvest festival to their own purposes. SignatureCheryl >>> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net>: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >that early on, it's quite possible they were re-creating and adapting a >harvest festival to their own purposes. Any excuse for a party. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >Rather than a religious event, I see the early Thanksgivings as >celebrations of a concept: religious freedom in the New World, >something the Pilgrims did not enjoy in the old one. Unfortunately, they didn't believe in religious freedom for others. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >>>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > So it was originally a religious event. Oh, yes, the public Thanksgiving Day undoubtedly arose from the earlier religious celebrations - although even in a religious context, I've been reminded to be thankful to all the people who work so hard to provide the food for the dinner etc - not, since it was in a religious context, without thanking God, of course. But I don't really see how the modern US and Canadian holiday is a religious one. As your quote from Wiki says:" In both Canada and the USA it has also become a national secular holiday with religious origins...". Having seen so much US Thanksgiving imagery, I even think that all those references to Pilgrim Fathers are more in the 'Fathers of our Country' sense than 'Pious Protestant Fathers' sense. I have always been told that the Canadian version was supposed to be closer to the UK harvest festival than the US Thanksgiving, but with the date adjusted to suit the climate. As a public holiday and family get-together, it doesn't seem to have any religious content at all unless the person celebrating it goes to a religious ceremony along with the family get-together, the big dinner, and the day off work. Cheryl > Ditto in Canada: > http://www.thanksgiving-day.org/celebration-canada.html [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > festival: > http://www.wesleycam.org.uk/harvestsermon.php SignatureCheryl Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote (23-02-2010 12:32): > I suppose that at a festival called Thanksgiving people are giving > thanks for something. They are presumably thanking someone. Who are they > thanking? Odd as it may seem, many non-religious people sometimes feel grateful for small or otherwise mercies but at a loss as to whom they're grateful to. Since you can't be thankful towards non-subjects (at most you're thankful to whatever subject(s) brought to you the non-subjects that saved your life), one wonders. On Feb 23, 5:32 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > >> Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca>: > >>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > So it was originally a religious event. ... Originally, yes, but it's now a gustatory and relaxational event (religion optional), often followed by an emptive event. -- Jerry Friedman >>> Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >>>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >So it was originally a religious event. The legal basis for it, the proclamations, still treat it as one. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * [...] > We do not have a Thanksgiving day in Britain and Ireland. Some > churches (not RC) have Harvest Festival services: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > modern harvest festival: > http://www.wesleycam.org.uk/harvestsermon.php And the local baker has his annual opportunity to bake a huge loaf in the special mould in the shape of a wheat-sheaf: this is displayed in the church, (presumably till it goes stale). SignatureMike. > I suppose that at a festival called Thanksgiving people are giving > thanks for something. They are presumably thanking someone. Who are they [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > So it was originally a religious event. No more so than any other event held by the strictly religious pilgrim fathers. It is certainly not religious in the sense that it is part of the official Christian ritual, and the same applies to the other thanking events you mention, unless you include Eucharist, which is of course Greek for "thank you". SignatureRob Bannister > > Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca>: > >> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > religious event, even though many (most?) churches and almost certainly > other places of worship hold thanksgiving services. Thansgiving was instituted in 1863 as a way to take people's minds off the War for a moment. These days, the off-day after Thanksgiving is taken as the start of the Christmas shopping season and has recently become known by the bizarre term "Black Friday" because it's the day when, supposedly, retailers go "into the black" on the year, because of the huge volume of sales. "Black Friday" is a bizarre term because previously "Black Xday" referred to days on which the stock market plunged, hurling the nation into Depression. >> Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >religious event, even though many (most?) churches and almost certainly >other places of worship hold thanksgiving services. As I noted elsewhere, governmental proclamations of Thanksgiving all seem to make it a day of Thanksgiving and prayer. The fact that many of us do not treat it as one is a different matter. BTW, the four-day holiday for Thanksgiving is actaully fairly recent; when I was young Thanksgiving Friday was generally just another work day (although, I suspect, little work actually got done). Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I never imagined for one moment that Thanksgiving might be considered a > religious holiday. Because it is about giving thanks to a god? > Having thought about it for a few minutes, I can't > think of any reason at all. But then I don't know much about it, and I'd > welcome enlightenment. Wouldn't you say that the first Thanksgiving celebration is religious in nature? (Imagine what the pilgrims would do, when after saying grace at the table, their native American friend wanted to do a dance to thank their god.) Wouldn't you also say that the Thanksgiving celebration in the subsequent year was not to commemorate the first celebration, but to have another (religious) celebration, etc? Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >> Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Because it is about giving thanks to a god? But it isn't, not always, in the current situation. Sometimes other people are thanked; sometimes the intention seems to be simply to increase one's awareness of good fortune or a happy family. >> Having thought about it for a few minutes, I can't >> think of any reason at all. But then I don't know much about it, and I'd [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > subsequent year was not to commemorate the first celebration, > but to have another (religious) celebration, etc? The original North American celebration in what is now the US, yes, definitely religious. After all, the people whose celebration is remembered emigrated for religious reasons, and religion was a central part of their lives. I expect the various Native Americans also had religious thanksgivings; it's very common in all societies to celebrate having lots to eat, and it often takes a religious turn. But the official four-day weekend as established in the twentieth century in the US? Sure, the option to gather with other like-minded people and thank God is there, but that's hardly essential to the holiday. Awareness of good fortune, gratitude to those who make it possible (in a secular sense), remembering various national myths, spending time with the family (and/or football), eating turkey, planning a trip to the sales....that's what Thanksgiving Day is about for most people. SignatureCheryl >>> Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >>>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > But it isn't, not always, in the current situation. I would guess that it isn't very often. That certainly hasn't been the focus of any Thanksgiving celebration I've ever attended, and I don't think it's been a part of any other than in the way some people will say Grace before any meal or Birkat Hamazon after it. > Sometimes other people are thanked; sometimes the intention seems to > be simply to increase one's awareness of good fortune or a happy > family. Right. One doesn't need a personified source of one's good fortune in order to be thankful for it. And if one does, "Fortune" works just as well. But mostly one can feel "thankful" for things and express the things that one is thankful for without needing to "thank" anything in much the same way that one can talk about "creatures" without necessarily believing that there must be a creator. And, of course, for most people the point of Thanksgiving isn't in expressing thanks, it's getting together with people you love and sharing food with them and thereby reminding yourself of what you have to be thankful for. >>> Having thought about it for a few minutes, I can't think of any >>> reason at all. But then I don't know much about it, and I'd >>> welcome enlightenment. >> Wouldn't you say that the first Thanksgiving celebration is >> religious in nature? (Imagine what the pilgrims would do, when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> commemorate the first celebration, but to have another (religious) >> celebration, etc? Back then, sure. Now the holiday largely *is* a commemoration of that first celebration, with overtones of "and you should think about the things that *you* are thankful for". I suspect that most Americans think of it and the Fourth of July as holidays commemorating the country's founding myth. > The original North American celebration in what is now the US, yes, > definitely religious. After all, the people whose celebration is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > planning a trip to the sales....that's what Thanksgiving Day is > about for most people. SignatureEvan 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/ >>> Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >>>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > people and thank God is there, but that's hardly essential to the > holiday. That is one way to determine if an event is religious or religion related. Another way is to see if the event evokes religious feelings. If an event was designed to evoke religious feelings and continues to do so in the target audience, then it qualifies as a religious event. Cf a paper clip. It is designed to clip together several pieces of paper. It is still being used that way. The fact that it has a million other uses, and that it is more likely to be used for other purposes does not matter. It is still a paper clip. > Awareness of good fortune, gratitude to those who make it > possible (in a secular sense), First of all, feeling blessed and feeling fortunate are not the same. The first involves the belief that there is a supernatural intention. The second does not. Second, feeling grateful towards a god and feeling grateful towards a person or persons are again different. The former is often not event-specific. In fact, Christianity exults a perpetuate state of gratefulness for anything and everything that is quite bewildering to people without similar elements in their cultural background. Giving thanks and saying grace are a Christian(1) traditions that aims to promote feeling blessed and being omni-grateful. One can also say that they are trying to put God into otherwise secular daily lives. (In comparison, one does not thank his employer at every meal, for example.) (1) Perhaps not uniquely Christian. The institutionalization of an annual day of gratefulness is thus Christian in nature. In other words, one who does not believe in a supernatural intention does not see the need of such an omni-gratefulness in the first place. So, the issue boils down to the reaction to Thanksgiving by the Christians: does it still evoke the religious feeling of blessedness and omni-gratefulness? E.g., if you are a Christian, do you say a more elaborate grace on that day than other days? (Or do you not say grace on other days and say it only on Thanksgiving and other special days?) > ..., remembering various national myths, > spending time with the family (and/or football), eating turkey, planning > a trip to the sales....that's what Thanksgiving Day is about for most > people. See analogy of paper clip. For the record, I do not see the government setting up a holiday for a religious event as a priori favoring that religion. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >> The original North American celebration in what is now the US, yes, >> definitely religious. After all, the people whose celebration is [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > not the same. The first involves the belief that there > is a supernatural intention. The second does not. > Second, feeling grateful towards a god and feeling grateful > towards a person or persons are again different. The former > is often not event-specific. In fact, Christianity exults > a perpetuate state of gratefulness for anything and > everything that is quite bewildering to people without > similar elements in their cultural background. > Giving thanks and saying grace are a Christian(1) traditions > that aims to promote feeling blessed and being omni-grateful. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (1) Perhaps not uniquely Christian. Yes, I was giving those specific examples (of being thankful for good fortune and towards other humans) to show how thankfulness exists and is displayed in the context of American (and Canadian) Thanksgiving holiday WITHOUT people in question doing so for religious reasons. Certainly, Christianity strongly encourages being thankful towards God and being aware of blessings - not just on one day, but on all days. But my observation is that a LOT of North Americans celebrate Thanksgiving Day without thanking God - often, without even believing in God. They still feel thankful, but it's directed towards the world in general or specific people or just a general feeling that they've got it a lot better than they did before, or than other people do now. > The institutionalization of an annual day of gratefulness > is thus Christian in nature. In other words, one who > does not believe in a supernatural intention does not > see the need of such an omni-gratefulness in the first > place. Unless, of course, that person wants to acknowledge publicly how thankful they are because they've got a good job, lots of food, a happy family around them, and all the other things associated with Thanksgiving (football games??). Entirely secular people often want to acknowledge private emotions publicly - I'm sure that's one of the main reasons these days for wedding ceremonies. > So, the issue boils down to the reaction to Thanksgiving > by the Christians: does it still evoke the religious feeling of > blessedness and omni-gratefulness? That's kind of backward, really. The holiday isn't supposed to evoke religious feelings, it allows you to express the ones you already have. And as you mentioned above, Christians are encouraged to express their thanksgiving to God daily. On special occasions - in a farming community, a successful harvest would certainly be such an event - the awareness of the blessings might well inspire special group thanksgiving. But is that what's happening with most people in North America today on those fall long weekends? I don't think so, but I can't prove it. > E.g., if you are a Christian, do you say a more elaborate > grace on that day than other days? (Or do you not say [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > See analogy of paper clip. I'm saying that I am not at all convinced that most people today use the paper clip to hold paper...or celebrate Thanksgiving weekend because they want to praise God for their blessings. Some do, certainly; just as some people centre their Christmas celebrations on their local church rather than on gifts, Santa and the Christmas tree. But whatever the pronouncements of US presidents on the subject (don't they just write a law allowing Thanksgiving once and be done with it?) and the millions of churchgoers, the holiday is purely secular for a very large number of people, and most of the events involved in it have no religious significance at all. > For the record, I do not see the government setting up a > holiday for a religious event as a priori favoring that > religion. > > Tak SignatureCheryl >>> The original North American celebration in what is now the US, yes, >>> definitely religious. After all, the people whose celebration is [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > displayed in the context of American (and Canadian) Thanksgiving holiday > WITHOUT people in question doing so for religious reasons. Perhaps not _consciously_ religious, but still religious in nature. To wit, omni-gratefulness/blessedness is Christian specific. That was one of my points. > Certainly, > Christianity strongly encourages being thankful towards God and being [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > or specific people or just a general feeling that they've got it a lot > better than they did before, or than other people do now. My point is that "reminded gratefulness" is Christian in nature and is part of the "celebration" as much as the turkey dinner is. People who can be reminded to be thankful on Thanksgiving probably come from Christian backgrounds and identify with Christian moral values. Note that other faiths might also have omni-gratefulness but the Thanksgiving tradition is probably too foreign to their followers to trigger this emotion in them. Also, not that it matters much, but I doubt that there are too many people who feel thankful to "the world". As someone else has pointed out in another branch of this thread, one does not feel thankful unless one has a person(s)/god/divine intention to thank. Otherwise one just feels fortunate. >> The institutionalization of an annual day of gratefulness >> is thus Christian in nature. In other words, one who [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > family around them, and all the other things associated with > Thanksgiving (football games??). You seem to have missed my points entirely. Why would these people want to acknowledge publicly how _thankful_ they are if they do not feel _thankful_ in the first place? (Again, feeling _fortunate_ is an entirely different matter.) > Entirely secular people often want to > acknowledge private emotions publicly - They might, but not necessarily on this particular day, esp when this is from a tradition that they don't identify with? > I'm sure that's one of the main > reasons these days for wedding ceremonies. And I am sure that just as many wedding ceremonies are planned simply because the brides want to wear pretty clothes and be the center of attention for once in their lives. :-) >> So, the issue boils down to the reaction to Thanksgiving >> by the Christians: does it still evoke the religious feeling of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And as you mentioned above, Christians are encouraged to express their > thanksgiving to God daily. So Christians are born and not trained? Children have a natural wish to say grace? "Celebration" in a religious context are always dual purposed. Note that historically, a thanksgiving day (lower case) was just as often a day of prayer and fasting as a day of feast. > On special occasions - in a farming > community, a successful harvest would certainly be such an event [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > America today on those fall long weekends? I don't think so, but I can't > prove it. But I never said that's what's happening on Thanksgiving nowadays. What I said was the Christians are still being triggered into omni-gratefulness on that day. >> E.g., if you are a Christian, do you say a more elaborate >> grace on that day than other days? (Or do you not say >> grace on other days and say it only on Thanksgiving and >> other special days?) >>> ..., remembering various national myths, spending time with the >>> family (and/or football), eating turkey, planning a trip to the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > paper clip to hold paper...or celebrate Thanksgiving weekend because > they want to praise God for their blessings. Let me repeat: I never said that people celebrate Thanksgiving nowadays because they want to thank God. What I said was that Thanksgivings still triggers gratefulness to God. You misinterpreted me starting from "That's kind of backward, really." > Some do, certainly; just as > some people centre their Christmas celebrations on their local church [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > people, and most of the events involved in it have no religious > significance at all. See above. >> For the record, I do not see the government setting up a >> holiday for a religious event as a priori favoring that >> religion. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >> Yes, I was giving those specific examples (of being thankful for good >> fortune and towards other humans) to show how thankfulness exists and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > To wit, omni-gratefulness/blessedness is Christian specific. > That was one of my points. I find it extraordinarily hard to understand the idea of some practice that's not _consciously_ religious in nature still being religious. Maybe I misunderstand you, but every example I can think of that might qualify - for example, an atheist using religious language or gesture out of habit or under extreme stress - fails at being religious because it contains no real intention to worship a god. Moreover, while thanksgiving is extremely important in Christianity, it is hardly exclusive to it. > My point is that "reminded gratefulness" is Christian in > nature and is part of the "celebration" as much as the turkey > dinner is. People who can be reminded to be thankful on > Thanksgiving probably come from Christian backgrounds and > identify with Christian moral values. So no one who had not got a Christian background ever tells their children something like "You should be thankful for your good food, or for how hard your parents work to care for you"? I would have thought thankfulness is learned, and it's not only learned by Christians. > Note that other faiths might also have omni-gratefulness but > the Thanksgiving tradition is probably too foreign to their > followers to trigger this emotion in them. That's backwards again, if you're talking about the Christian view of Thanksgiving. The day - and any other of the days of thanksgivings through the centuries, and private daily thanksgivings are supposed to be generated by the person's gratitude, not to trigger gratitude or thanksgiving in the person - once one has outgrown the self-centredness of childhood, of course. > Also, not that it matters much, but I doubt that there are > too many people who feel thankful to "the world". As someone > else has pointed out in another branch of this thread, one > does not feel thankful unless one has a person(s)/god/divine > intention to thank. Otherwise one just feels fortunate. That's really a distinction without a difference - 'fortunate' itself refers to a god, Fortuna. A great deal of gratefulness, thankfulness whatever you want to call it, is directed towards another person, but i think almost everyone who has ever thought about it has felt the same emotion towards the fact of being in the right place at the right time, or the efforts of many unknown people that produce a marvellous experience or great place to live. > You seem to have missed my points entirely. Why would these > people want to acknowledge publicly how _thankful_ they are > if they do not feel _thankful_ in the first place? (Again, > feeling _fortunate_ is an entirely different matter.) Well, as I just said, I don't see the difference, whether you feel thankful towards your parents, God, Fortuna or Lady Luck. > They might, but not necessarily on this particular day, esp > when this is from a tradition that they don't identify with? Then they don't have to. Again, the day is an opportunity for people to express the thankfulness they already have; it's not a goad to urge them to have the right feelings. >> That's kind of backward, really. The holiday isn't supposed to evoke >> religious feelings, it allows you to express the ones you already [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > dual purposed. Note that historically, a thanksgiving day (lower > case) was just as often a day of prayer and fasting as a day of feast. Children need to learn what to call that pleasure they feel when someone does something for them for no particular reason. No one's born needing no training whatsoever! > But I never said that's what's happening on Thanksgiving nowadays. > What I said was the Christians are still being triggered into > omni-gratefulness on that day. I can only say that I've never seen such a thing, and I've known lots of Christians and attended lots of Thanksgiving dinners. I think you're confusing sharing memories of what one is thankful for with the memories themselves being triggered by sitting down to a turkey dinner. > Let me repeat: I never said that people celebrate Thanksgiving > nowadays because they want to thank God. What I said was that > Thanksgivings still triggers gratefulness to God. You > misinterpreted me starting from "That's kind of backward, > really." For the second - or third? - time, I have never noticed anyone suddenly becoming thankful to God when they attended a Thanksgiving dinner. I have seen already religious people expressing their thankfulness in religious terms at grace at dinner and in church. I have seen non-religious people participating in grace (or other prayers) out of courtesy to religious friends and relative who they probably, and religious people limiting their dinner-time expression of thankfulness towards God to a silent and almost unnoticeable moment of silence and prayer out of courtesy to their non-religious friends and relatives who are clearly not giving God a thought. I've seen lots and lots of people talking about how glad they are for the presence of their friends and families etc etc. What I haven't ever seen or heard of is someone saying 'Oh, it's Thanksgiving Day, I must give thanks to God'. Even a religious person wouldn't say that; it would go without saying that that is done daily, and they don't need to be reminded. Now, you still get some people inspired by childhood memories of Easter and particularly Christmas into carrying out religious actions like attending church and increasing their charitable giving, but I've never seen that sort of effect around Thanksgiving Day. SignatureCheryl >>> Yes, I was giving those specific examples (of being thankful for good >>> fortune and towards other humans) to show how thankfulness exists and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > out of habit or under extreme stress - fails at being religious because > it contains no real intention to worship a god. It is not uncommon for someone to perceive that one of one's belief is more universal than it actually is. For example, many fundamentalist perceive incorrectly that their notion of "the bible is _just_as_good_ an explanation of the spieces"[1] is well received outside of their religion. Thus, what they think of as a non-religious opinion is in fact a religious one. [1] Note well: this notion is based on a misunderstanding of the scientific method rather than a preference of the bible. In other words, those who believe in this notion believe that they have evaluated "science" and "bible" fairly, and that science has not been shown to be better. "They can't _prove_ evolution, right?" (Cf the many junk science verdicts handed down by US courts.) > Moreover, while thanksgiving is extremely important in Christianity, it > is hardly exclusive to it. Agree. However, the other religions that share this trait were not involved in the starting or the institutionalization of the holiday. ----- ----- >> My point is that "reminded gratefulness" is Christian in >> nature and is part of the "celebration" as much as the turkey [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for how hard your parents work to care for you"? I would have thought > thankfulness is learned, and it's not only learned by Christians. I distinguish gratefulness to specific person or persons from gratefulness to a supernatural intention. I call the latter "omni-gratefulness" and it much broader in scope. Buddhists, for one, don't have this concept. Karma is _intentionless_. ----- ----- >> Note that other faiths might also have omni-gratefulness but >> the Thanksgiving tradition is probably too foreign to their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > thanksgiving in the person - once one has outgrown the self-centredness > of childhood, of course. Lincoln's proclamation said thus "... we are prone to forget the source from which they come..." http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/thanks.htm In other words, Lincoln himself saw the holiday as a useful reminder. ----- ----- >> Also, not that it matters much, but I doubt that there are >> too many people who feel thankful to "the world". As someone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's really a distinction without a difference - 'fortunate' itself > refers to a god, Fortuna. That is etymology. In current usage and in the way I define the term for use in this discussion, feeling fortunate is feeling happy for the outcome of events that one believes to be random in nature. I don't think many Christians actually believe in a goddess outside of Trinity who governs the outcome of events in their lives. If you press them, they will most likely renounce the goddess and attribute the apparent randomness to the unfathomable nature of God's will. > A great deal of gratefulness, thankfulness > whatever you want to call it, is directed towards another person, but i > think almost everyone who has ever thought about it has felt the same > emotion towards the fact of being in the right place at the right time, > or the efforts of many unknown people that produce a marvellous > experience or great place to live. Again, feeling happy (fortunate) and feeling grateful are two entirely different matters. Perhaps you are handicapped by the fact that the same English word "thankful" are used for the different meanings. Cf the word "honest" in English. "An honest day of work", "an honest (truthful) answer", and "an honest woman" are three different concepts covered by the same word. When translating these phrase to other language, three different words may be needed. Or perhaps you are unfamiliar with non-Abrahamic religions. ----- ----- >> You seem to have missed my points entirely. Why would these >> people want to acknowledge publicly how _thankful_ they are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, as I just said, I don't see the difference, whether you feel > thankful towards your parents, God, Fortuna or Lady Luck. This was what I meant by being unconsciously religious. We probably have to agree to disagree on this. ----- ----- >> They might, but not necessarily on this particular day, esp >> when this is from a tradition that they don't identify with? > > Then they don't have to. Again, the day is an opportunity for people to > express the thankfulness they already have; it's not a goad to urge them > to have the right feelings. So they don't. In a sense, they don't "celebrate" Thanksgiving. the same way as Christians do. Thus, a paper clip is used to keep hook two keys together. It is still a paper clip nonetheless. ----- ----- >>> That's kind of backward, really. The holiday isn't supposed to evoke >>> religious feelings, it allows you to express the ones you already [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > does something for them for no particular reason. No one's born needing > no training whatsoever! It is more than learning "what to call". The main point is about learning "how/(to whom) to attribute". ----- ----- >> But I never said that's what's happening on Thanksgiving nowadays. >> What I said was the Christians are still being triggered into [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > confusing sharing memories of what one is thankful for with the memories > themselves being triggered by sitting down to a turkey dinner. Some netters confirmed my observation that a special grace (or a grace at all) is being said on that day. ----- ----- >> Let me repeat: I never said that people celebrate Thanksgiving >> nowadays because they want to thank God. What I said was that [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > attending church and increasing their charitable giving, but I've never > seen that sort of effect around Thanksgiving Day. See discussions about grace on Thanksgiving. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > Again, feeling happy (fortunate) and feeling grateful are two > entirely different matters. Perhaps you are handicapped by > the fact that the same English word "thankful" are used for > the different meanings. 'Fortunate' and 'happy' are not synonyms. They are related to gratefulness or thankfulness in that they are both among the many things people experience gratefulness or thankfulness for. I'm quite familiar with English, and the fact that one word may have many meanings. >> Well, as I just said, I don't see the difference, whether you feel >> thankful towards your parents, God, Fortuna or Lady Luck. > > This was what I meant by being unconsciously religious. > > We probably have to agree to disagree on this. We definately have to agree to disagree on what it means to practice a religion. > Some netters confirmed my observation that a special grace > (or a grace at all) is being said on that day. Which has little to do with whether or not the holiday as a whole, in most households or for most people, is thought to be or experienced as a religious holiday. It MIGHT mean that those particular people are religious, or increasing religious, at Thanksgiving. It might mean that they are being courteous towards relatives they only entertain on that day. It might mean that they are going through a meaningless ritual without thinking much about it, just because that's the way it's always been done. I admit I have no data on what percentage of Americans, or American households or North Americans, use Thanksgiving as a religious celebration. I do note that although some posters have mentioned praying on Thanksgiving, others have mentioned celebrating the holiday in an entirely non-religious manner. But then we'd be back to your claim that they're doing it unconciously, and my claim that it's impossible to practice a religion - or at least the one the US holiday is based on - unconciously, which doesn't seem a very fruitful path of discussion to head down again. SignatureCheryl On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:08:06 -0330, Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> wrote in <news:7uvv11Ff27U1@mid.individual.net> in sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> Again, feeling happy (fortunate) and feeling grateful are two >> entirely different matters. Perhaps you are handicapped by >> the fact that the same English word "thankful" are used for >> the different meanings. > 'Fortunate' and 'happy' are not synonyms. True, though 'fortunate' *is* one of the meanings of 'happy' -- the oldest, actually, and not yet entirely lost. And you snipped a bit too much: Tak To's 'feeling happy (fortunate)' has to be read in the light of his earlier statement that '[i]n current usage and in the way I define the term for use in this discussion, feeling fortunate is feeling happy for the outcome of events that one believes to be random in nature'. Clearly he's *not* taking 'fortunate' and 'happy' to be synonyms, and the part that you quoted is mere shorthand. [...] Brian > I admit I have no data on what percentage of Americans, or American > households or North Americans, use Thanksgiving as a religious > celebration. I do note that although some posters have mentioned praying > on Thanksgiving, others have mentioned celebrating the holiday in an > entirely non-religious manner. I've been to a lot of Thanksgivings in my time, sometimes more than one a year. I've seen it run the gamut from an awkward overly religious dinner on par with Christmas and Easter to a just as awkward down-right pagan celebration of native cultures, the Earth Goddess, and a reminder of how evil and horrible all white people inherently are. Mostly, it settles toward the secular side. It's about food and NFL Football and even in households were Christmas is decidedly a religious holiday, Thanksgiving mostly is not. Let's put it this way, a lot of people go to church only twice a year in the US, Christmas and Easter. Thanksgiving is not in the mix, and even most people who go to church weekly don't go to church on Thanksgiving. We Americans also look upon it as an exclusively American holiday, despite any evidence to the contrary. The assumption is that those Canadians borrowed it from us, just like they borrowed everything else except that stupid bowling with rocks game. (I'm not including myself in the above paragraph. I like curling.) Signature<jshock221> a freudian slip is when you say one thing but you're really thinking about a mother. <Spadgeroonie> no, a freudian slip is sexy underwear your mother wears > Mostly, it settles toward the secular side. It's about food and NFL > Football and even in households were Christmas is decidedly a religious > holiday, Thanksgiving mostly is not. i've heard the NFL thing occasionally, but mainly as a sitcom stereotype of bad husbands. I've probably been to a dozen different households for Thanksgiving and I've never known anyone to actually watch football that day--not even avid NFL fans. I'm sure that's different in parts of the country where the home team plays on Thanksgiving. The only TV I've really seen is the morning parade as background noise during dinner preparation. By meal time, the feast is generally in focus and the TV is off. About half the time I hear a prayer/blessing before the meal, but it's pretty much a food-centric holiday in my experience. > We Americans also look upon it as an exclusively American holiday, > despite any evidence to the contrary. The assumption is that those > Canadians borrowed it from us, just like they borrowed everything else > except that stupid bowling with rocks game. > > (I'm not including myself in the above paragraph. I like curling.) But they did borrow it, IIRC-from the Scottish. [O Lord, we beseech thee to heal this turkey] >> We Americans also look upon it as an exclusively American holiday, >> despite any evidence to the contrary. The assumption is that those >> Canadians borrowed it from us, just like they borrowed everything >> else except that stupid bowling with rocks game. It always used to amuse me to see Americans mocking the Soviets for claiming to have invented everything, because you do the same thing yourselves. >> (I'm not including myself in the above paragraph. I like curling.) > > But they did borrow it, IIRC-from the Scottish. That one's true. > We Americans also look upon it as an exclusively American holiday, > despite any evidence to the contrary. The assumption is that those > Canadians borrowed it from us, just like they borrowed everything else > except that stupid bowling with rocks game. > > (I'm not including myself in the above paragraph. I like curling.) As do I. Interestingly, though, while most Americans assume that Canadians borrowed football from us, their game was apparently originally codified about a decade before American football. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |English is about as pure as a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |cribhouse whore. We don't just Palo Alto, CA 94304 |borrow words; on occasion, English |has pursued other languages down kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |alleyways to beat them unconscious (650)857-7572 |and rifle their pockets for new |vocabulary. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | --James D. Nicoll > We Americans also look upon [Thanksgiving] as an exclusively American > holiday, despite any evidence to the contrary. The assumption is that > those Canadians borrowed it from us, just like they borrowed > everything else except that stupid bowling with rocks game. ... and their thinking that they might too live in America is sheer effrontery? (-: So when are the people of the U.S. going to rise up and throw them off the continent? It is an exclusively American holiday, by the way. (-: >> Again, feeling happy (fortunate) and feeling grateful are two >> entirely different matters. Perhaps you are handicapped by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people experience gratefulness or thankfulness for. I'm quite familiar > with English, and the fact that one word may have many meanings. See Brian's reply. >>> Well, as I just said, I don't see the difference, whether you feel >>> thankful towards your parents, God, Fortuna or Lady Luck. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > We definately have to agree to disagree on what it means to practice a > religion. Perhaps you never read my messages clearly. I was not talking about practising a religion; I was talking about how "a religious holiday" could be defined, and it has something to do with a religious feeling that people might have on that day. >> Some netters confirmed my observation that a special grace >> (or a grace at all) is being said on that day. > > Which has little to do with whether or not the holiday as a whole, in > most households or for most people, is thought to be or experienced as a > religious holiday. Saying a different grace (or a grace at all) on that day indicates that it has a special significance to people that goes beyond football games and turkey dinner. And that significance is based on a feeling that is religion specific. > It MIGHT mean that those particular people are > religious, or increasing religious, at Thanksgiving. It might mean that > they are being courteous towards relatives they only entertain on that > day. It might mean that they are going through a meaningless ritual > without thinking much about it, just because that's the way it's always > been done. The custom of saying a different grace (or a grace at all) is not random. I can't quite see it as meaningless to people who are doing it. > I admit I have no data on what percentage of Americans, or American > households or North Americans, use Thanksgiving as a religious > celebration. I do note that although some posters have mentioned praying > on Thanksgiving, others have mentioned celebrating the holiday in an > entirely non-religious manner. I did not say anything about "religious celebration", whatever that might mean in this context. > But then we'd be back to your claim that they're doing it unconciously, > and my claim that it's impossible to practice a religion - or at least > the one the US holiday is based on - unconciously, which doesn't seem a > very fruitful path of discussion to head down again. I did not say they "practise religion" unconsciously. I said they might not be consciously aware that the "thankfulness" feeling their harbor is religious in nature. Perhaps it was my fault, but I find myself clarifying the same points over and over again. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > Perhaps you never read my messages clearly. I was not talking > about practising a religion; I was talking about how "a religious > holiday" could be defined, and it has something to do with > a religious feeling that people might have on that day. I'm reading them as clearly as you are reading mine, which might not be very clearly at all. A religious holiday is not one defined by anyone's feelings. It's defined by the requirements of a religion and the attempts of people following the religion to express themselves through those requirements. Feelings without the actions in the context of a religion don't mean a thing when it comes to defining whether or not a holiday is religious in nature. Moreover, merely performing actions, without the religious intention behind them, whether it's a case of saying grace or being (reluctantly) baptized or confirmed are not examples of people practising religion. No, these aren't random actions, but they are carried out for other reasons. I've known plenty of people who will say grace for a special dinner because Granny is there, and will expect it. Or out of habit, merely carrying on a tradition remembered from childhood. It can be as meaningless as saying "How do you do?" to someone whose health you care nothing about - saying grace is often a mere social ritual. And I still disagree that the thankfulness people feel, at Thanksgiving or any other time, is necessarily religious in origin, but I guess that's another agree-to-disagree topic. SignatureCheryl >And I still disagree that the thankfulness people feel, at Thanksgiving >or any other time, is necessarily religious in origin, but I guess >that's another agree-to-disagree topic. I agree. I think the "thanks that I've still got my job" can mean "I'm really glad that I still have my job" Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> And I still disagree that the thankfulness people feel, at Thanksgiving >> or any other time, is necessarily religious in origin, but I guess >> that's another agree-to-disagree topic. > > I agree. I think the "thanks that I've still got my job" can mean > "I'm really glad that I still have my job" And there's a good chance that one of two of those early pilgrims who said "Thank God we've got enough food to get through next winter" were not quite as religious as the rest and also just meant "I'm really glad". SignatureRob Bannister >> And I still disagree that the thankfulness people feel, at Thanksgiving >> or any other time, is necessarily religious in origin, but I guess >> that's another agree-to-disagree topic. > > I agree. I think the "thanks that I've still got my job" can mean > "I'm really glad that I still have my job" One can be both happy and at the same time believing that it is God's intention for one to have a job and thus be grateful to God as well. Whether one believes it is just random or willed by God -- that is the difference that I have been talking about. A quick review of my terminology: feeling fortunate = feeling happy and attributing to randomness; feeling grateful to God = feeling happy(*) and attributing to God's intention (*) I did not talk about this explicitly because I assume that gratefulness stems from happiness Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >>> And I still disagree that the thankfulness people feel, at Thanksgiving >>> or any other time, is necessarily religious in origin, but I guess [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >God's intention for one to have a job and thus be grateful to God >as well. One certainly can. Or might not. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > > Perhaps you never read my messages clearly. I was not talking > > about practising a religion; I was talking about how "a religious [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > attempts of people following the religion to express themselves through > those requirements. Exactly. A religious holiday is defined by some religion as being a holiday within that religion, and by the people who are members of that religion recognizing it as suce. Even on secular holidays, any time there's deep spiritual meaning (for many people, that happens on Memorial Day, or even New Year's) there will be a lot of religious feelings among celebrants. That doesn't make those religious holidays, though. Certainly, most mainstream Christian sects don't consider Thanksgiving to be a religious holiday--and even fewer Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or other sects do so. I'm not aware of _any_ religion where Thanksgiving is a holiday, but with the plethora of different religions that exist I'd be surprised if there aren't a few smaller faiths (or more) out there where that's untrue--still, for the _vast_ majority of people who celebrate it, Thanksgiving isn't a religious holiday. That doesn't mean that there aren't deeply religious feelings raised among participants, but ultimately it's not a religious holiday for the vast majority of people who celebrate it (even for those many who consider it a personal religious expression and choose to celebrate their God or their messiah or other religious or spiritual items on that day). > I'm not aware of_any_ religion where Thanksgiving is a holiday Well, if you serve spaghetti then I would have to assume it becomes a High Holy Day of the FSM. SignatureStupid men are often capable of things the clever would not dare to contemplate... --Feet of Clay >> > Perhaps you never read my messages clearly. I was not talking >> > about practising a religion; I was talking about how "a religious [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >will be a lot of religious feelings among celebrants. That doesn't >make those religious holidays, though. To me, if the holiday is officially and specifically declared for a religious reason, as in the various proclamations establishing Thanksgiving, then it is a religious holiday which is simply taken advantage of by those who don't indulge in ay religious practices. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> Perhaps you never read my messages clearly. I was not talking >>>> about practising a religion; I was talking about how "a religious [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > taken advantage of by those who don't indulge in ay religious > practices. I was mildly surprised to find out the US holiday was declared that way annually. It seems an odd practice to me. Which brings up the question - does the American President have the authority to declare that a holiday is a religious one? Independantly of any authority in the religion in question doing so, I mean. I certainly wouldn't take a political leader as an expert in determining the answer to any religious question, and certainly, in the US context, find it odd that a secular leader would declare a religious holiday. In a state without separation of church and state, of course, the state or anyone else can declare a day of thanksgiving for anything. SignatureCheryl > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:37:35 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" > > <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Which brings up the question - does the American President have the > authority to declare that a holiday is a religious one? Of course not! > Independantly of > any authority in the religion in question doing so, I mean. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a state without separation of church and state, of course, the state or > anyone else can declare a day of thanksgiving for anything. >>>>> Perhaps you never read my messages clearly. I was not talking >>>>> about practising a religion; I was talking about how "a religious [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> taken advantage of by those who don't indulge in ay religious >> practices. I agree that it indicates an unconstitutional intrusion of church on state, but so far everyone looks the ohter way. >I was mildly surprised to find out the US holiday was declared that way >annually. It seems an odd practice to me. for employment purposes, the paid holidays are set but not really defined. More just a list. >Which brings up the question - does the American President have the >authority to declare that a holiday is a religious one? Independantly of > any authority in the religion in question doing so, I mean. He doesn't explicitly say it's a religious holiday, only that it's a day for thanksgiving and prayer to God. But that seems wrong to me. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:37:35 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" > > <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I was mildly surprised to find out the US holiday was declared that way > annually. It isn't, really. Thanksgiving is legally established as a holiday by statute (5 USC §6103), and the statute makes no mention of religion or God. The president traditionally makes an annual proclamation declaring it "A Day of Thanksgiving" and invoking God, but that's purely inspirational. Bush issued a similar proclamation that 16 Jan 2009 was "Religious Freedom Day", Obama declared that 22 April was "Earth Day", etc--those proclamations have no impact on whether a day is a federal holiday or not, they're merely an opportunity for a president to reflect on a given day. The Thanksgiving proclamations are a particularly regular tradition, but they're nothing more than that. Thanksgiving is sanctioned as a legal holiday by a plainly-worded statute: § 6103. Holidays (a) The following are legal public holidays: New Year’s Day, January 1. Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., the third Monday in January. Washington’s Birthday, the third Monday in February. Memorial Day, the last Monday in May. Independence Day, July 4. Labor Day, the first Monday in September. Columbus Day, the second Monday in October. Veterans Day, November 11. Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November. Christmas Day, December 25. (b) For the purpose of statutes relating to pay and leave of employees, with respect to a legal public holiday and any other day declared to be a holiday by Federal statute or Executive order, the following rules apply: etc. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/6103.html for the full text. >> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:37:35 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" >> > <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >statute (5 USC §6103), and the statute makes no mention of religion or >God. In fact, it makes no mention for the reason for any holiday at all. >The president traditionally makes an annual proclamation declaring it >"A Day of Thanksgiving" and invoking God, but that's purely >inspirational. Sure. And what is Veterans Day all about? The USC doesn't say anything about that either. That part of the USC is procedural to specify days off and all. >Bush issued a similar proclamation that 16 Jan 2009 >was "Religious Freedom Day", That's rather ironic. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> Perhaps you never read my messages clearly. I was not talking >> about practising a religion; I was talking about how "a religious [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > very clearly at all. A religious holiday is not one defined by anyone's > feelings. Not just by the feeling, but also by 1) that the celebration was religious originally; and 2) that the holiday was instituted to promote a religious feeling. > It's defined by the requirements of a religion and the > attempts of people following the religion to express themselves through > those requirements. Feelings without the actions in the context of a > religion don't mean a thing when it comes to defining whether or not a > holiday is religious in nature. As I said from the very beginning, mine was an alternative definition. (And I was responding to someone who said that he could not imagine any reason at all to call Thanksgiving a religious holiday.) These definitions can co-exist. > Moreover, merely performing actions, > without the religious intention behind them, whether it's a case of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you do?" to someone whose health you care nothing about - saying grace > is often a mere social ritual. I understand. However, let me point out that this definition isn't particularly pertinent in the context of this sub-thread, which is about the separation of church and state. When someone complains about a nativity scene in a public space, the person in charge cannot use "but I don't really believe it" as a defense. > And I still disagree that the thankfulness people feel, at Thanksgiving > or any other time, is necessarily religious in origin, but I guess > that's another agree-to-disagree topic. Which sense of thankfulness? If you mean "thank God _for_everything_" then I would say that it is shaped by Christian (or other religion) training. The origin doesn't really matter in the current discussion. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > I understand. However, let me point out that this definition > isn't particularly pertinent in the context of this sub-thread, > which is about the separation of church and state. When someone > complains about a nativity scene in a public space, the person > in charge cannot use "but I don't really believe it" as a > defense. I don't understand this paragraph. Why would displaying a nativity scene in a public place require a defence? Surely any religion is allowed to to display aspects of their religion publicly - they're just not allowed to enforce it on anyone. SignatureRob Bannister >> I understand. However, let me point out that this definition >> isn't particularly pertinent in the context of this sub-thread, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >to display aspects of their religion publicly - they're just not allowed >to enforce it on anyone. He really doesn't mean a "public place" in the sense of being on view to the public. He means a public place like a school, a government building, a city park, or any other place that is a tax-supported public place. A nativity scene, or any other religious-themed scene, can be placed on private property - viewable to all - in the US. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > I did not say they "practise religion" unconsciously. I said they > might not be consciously aware that the "thankfulness" feeling their > harbor is religious in nature. Bull. I am perfectly capable of feeling thankful without being thankful TO some imaginary bearded guy in the sky. Signature"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid". >> I did not say they "practise religion" unconsciously. I said they >> might not be consciously aware that the "thankfulness" feeling their >> harbor is religious in nature. > > Bull. I am perfectly capable of feeling thankful without being thankful > TO some imaginary bearded guy in the sky. Why do you think that "you" are part of "they" in the above paragraph? And whom are you thankful to then? As I said before, the English word "thankful" covers several distinct meaning. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >> Yes, I was giving those specific examples (of being thankful for >> good fortune and towards other humans) to show how thankfulness [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > come from Christian backgrounds and identify with Christian moral > values. Except on the bases that a random person in the US is likely to "come from a Christian background" and that "Christian moral values" have a significant overlap with non-Christian moral values, that's an extraordinary statement. I'm not Christian and don't come from a Christian background and I've never found (modern) Thanksgiving, which I and my family have celebrated all my life, to be the least bit Christian (or even religious), and I've never heard of other non-Christians who did. > Note that other faiths might also have omni-gratefulness but > the Thanksgiving tradition is probably too foreign to their > followers to trigger this emotion in them. Huh? > Also, not that it matters much, but I doubt that there are too many > people who feel thankful to "the world". As someone else has > pointed out in another branch of this thread, one does not feel > thankful unless one has a person(s)/god/divine intention to thank. > Otherwise one just feels fortunate. One feels an emotion and one learns as a child that the English word used to describe that emotion is "thankful". Later, one learns that it's a human reflex to infer from a state that there's an agency that deserves credit or blame for that state, and that this is likely the basis of most religions. And that even people who don't personify (or unify) that agency feel it. And that some call that agency "fortune" and when they're thankful to fortune, they call themselves "fortunate". >>> The institutionalization of an annual day of gratefulness >>> is thus Christian in nature. In other words, one who [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > feel _thankful_ in the first place? (Again, feeling _fortunate_ is > an entirely different matter.) But we do feel thankful. >> Entirely secular people often want to acknowledge private emotions >> publicly - > > They might, but not necessarily on this particular day, esp > when this is from a tradition that they don't identify with? Thanksgiving is seen as an American tradition, not a Christian tradition. Non-Christian Americans have no trouble identifying with it. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Algebra? But that's far too 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |difficult for seven-year-olds!" Palo Alto, CA 94304 | |"Yes, but I didn't tell them that kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |and so far they haven't found out," (650)857-7572 |said Susan. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> Yes, I was giving those specific examples (of being thankful for >>> good fortune and towards other humans) to show how thankfulness [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > significant overlap with non-Christian moral values, that's an > extraordinary statement. ?? Do you mean "meaningless" or "inane" instead? > I'm not Christian and don't come from a > Christian background and I've never found (modern) Thanksgiving, which > I and my family have celebrated all my life, to be the least bit > Christian (or even religious), and I've never heard of other > non-Christians who did. I am not sure what this leads to. Please note that I allow multiple definitions of "religious" from the very beginning. My definition in this thread is that if a holiday started out as a religious practice, was established with a religious purpose (i.e., reminding people to be grateful to the Christian god for everything), and that purpose is still being served today, then the holiday is a religious holiday. >> Note that other faiths might also have omni-gratefulness but >> the Thanksgiving tradition is probably too foreign to their >> followers to trigger this emotion in them. > > Huh? Sorry, I am at a loss trying to figure out what more I need to explain. Could you narrow it down? ----- ----- >> Also, not that it matters much, but I doubt that there are too many >> people who feel thankful to "the world". As someone else has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > One feels an emotion and one learns as a child that the English word > used to describe that emotion is "thankful". And that (using the word "thankful") unfortunately conflate several different meanings: feeling fortunate; feeling blessed; feeling omni-grateful; and feeling specifically thankful to person or persons. Note that when translating "thankful" to a different language, different words might be required. > Later, one learns that > it's a human reflex to infer from a state that there's an agency that > deserves credit or blame for that state, and that this is likely the > basis of most religions. The concept of such an agency is specific to certain religions; Christianity being one of them. Karma, for example, is not an agency. > And that even people who don't personify (or > unify) that agency feel it. And that some call that agency "fortune" > and when they're thankful to fortune, they call themselves > "fortunate". As I said, you are conflating several different feelings. People don't feel the need to thank fate, even though they are happy that fate favors them. >>>> The institutionalization of an annual day of gratefulness >>>> is thus Christian in nature. In other words, one who [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > But we do feel thankful. You do, but I (and others like me) don't. What I feel is fortunate. ----- ------ >>> Entirely secular people often want to acknowledge private emotions >>> publicly - [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tradition. Non-Christian Americans have no trouble identifying with > it. Some do, some don't. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >I am not sure what this leads to. Please note that I allow >multiple definitions of "religious" from the very beginning. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Christian god for everything), and that purpose is still being >served today, then the holiday is a religious holiday. And for Thanksgiving, that includes the gubernatorial and presidential proclamations of the day. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> Yes, I was giving those specific examples (of being thankful for >>>> good fortune and towards other humans) to show how thankfulness [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > ?? Do you mean "meaningless" or "inane" instead? Maybe "flabbergasting"? With all of the non-Christians that celebrate Thanksgiving and reflect on what they're thankful for, the statement left me dumbfounded. >> I'm not Christian and don't come from a Christian background and >> I've never found (modern) Thanksgiving, which I and my family have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > purpose is still being served today, then the holiday is a religious > holiday. And in that sense, for the minority who still use it that way (reminding people to be grateful to the Christian god (or any god) for everything), it may be. For the rest of us, it isn't. >>> Note that other faiths might also have omni-gratefulness but >>> the Thanksgiving tradition is probably too foreign to their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sorry, I am at a loss trying to figure out what more I need > to explain. Could you narrow it down? If the emotion we call "thankfulness" is your "omni-gratefulness", then the Thanksgiving tradition (which is the basis of other holidays, as well) is clearly able to trigger it. >>> Also, not that it matters much, but I doubt that there are too >>> many people who feel thankful to "the world". As someone else has [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > persons. Note that when translating "thankful" to a different > language, different words might be required. The emotion is the same: being happy to be in a situation rather than another, easily imagined situation and feeling that if the situation were one in which the difference were due to another person, you would feel grateful to them. >> Later, one learns that it's a human reflex to infer from a state >> that there's an agency that deserves credit or blame for that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Christianity being one of them. Karma, for example, is not > an agency. I'm going to go with "most religions". Certainly all who have some notion of an agency that can be benevolent or malevolent or which can be petitioned. >> And that even people who don't personify (or unify) that agency >> feel it. And that some call that agency "fortune" and when they're >> thankful to fortune, they call themselves "fortunate". > > As I said, you are conflating several different feelings. Whereas I think that you're splitting up one feeling based on the presumed agency involved. > People don't feel the need to thank fate, even though they are happy > that fate favors them. I didn't say that people felt the need to thank fate. I said that they are thankful to fortune. And they personify it all the time, beseech it, curse it, etc. >>>>> The institutionalization of an annual day of gratefulness >>>>> is thus Christian in nature. In other words, one who [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You do, but I (and others like me) don't. What I feel is > fortunate. Okay. >>>> Entirely secular people often want to acknowledge private emotions >>>> publicly - [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Some do, some don't. Okay. As long as we're agreed that there's nothing at all unusual about non-Christian Americans identifying with the holiday or for Americans in general (Christian or non-Christian) not thinking of it in any was as a religious holiday. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Theories are not matters of fact, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |they are derived from observing Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fact. If you don't have data, you |don't get good theories. You get kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |theology instead. (650)857-7572 | --John Lawler http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> Except on the bases that a random person in the US is likely to >>> "come from a Christian background" and that "Christian moral [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Thanksgiving and reflect on what they're thankful for, the statement >left me dumbfounded. The Japanese celebrate Christmas (though not officially, I suspect). Go figure. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Hatunen wrote on Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:12:29 -0700: >>>> Except on the bases that a random person in the US is >>>> likely to "come from a Christian background" and that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> celebrate Thanksgiving and reflect on what they're thankful >> for, the statement left me dumbfounded. > The Japanese celebrate Christmas (though not officially, I > suspect). Go figure. There's a considerable market for Christian weddings in Japan, white dress, bridesmaids, veils etc. even if my Japanese friends seem to have had Shinto weddings with the bride in an elaborate kimono and the groom in Western morning dress. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > There's a considerable market for Christian weddings in Japan, white > dress, bridesmaids, veils etc. even if my Japanese friends seem to have > had Shinto weddings with the bride in an elaborate kimono and the groom > in Western morning dress. Actually, most of those are not Christian weddings. The young couple go to some sort of government office and sign papers to get married. At some later time, they hold a party in a hall which looks a bit like a church, but without the benefit of clergy, or any sort of legal marriage component. Their friends dress up in western suits and posh frocks, the couple stand at the front and recite some vows, possibly with the assistance of a master of ceremonies. But it's just a party. My young Japanese friends tell me that a pseudo-Christian wedding party is far cheaper than a Shinto wedding. And to many Japanese, all religions are just as valid as the others. SignatureDavid >> There's a considerable market for Christian weddings in Japan, white >> dress, bridesmaids, veils etc. even if my Japanese friends seem to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > party is far cheaper than a Shinto wedding. And to many Japanese, all > religions are just as valid as the others. And, as I've moaned before, there are even Australians who are mercenary enough to lower themselves to dressing up as clergymen and performing the pretend marriage service for visiting Japanese couples. SignatureMike. the Omrud filted: >> There's a considerable market for Christian weddings in Japan, white >> dress, bridesmaids, veils etc. even if my Japanese friends seem to have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >is far cheaper than a Shinto wedding. And to many Japanese, all >religions are just as valid as the others. Our exchange student from Japan, circa 1974, told us that the Japanese see no inconsistency in one person being simultaneously Buddhist, Shinto and Christian....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >the Omrud filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >inconsistency in one person being simultaneously Buddhist, Shinto and >Christian....r Yes, but only God can manage the omni-religious thing really well. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) BrE filted: >>the Omrud filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Yes, but only God can manage the omni-religious thing really well. That's because He doesn't have to show up at church....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > the Omrud filted: ... > >My young Japanese friends tell me that a pseudo-Christian wedding party > >is far cheaper than a Shinto wedding. And to many Japanese, all > >religions are just as valid as the others. I think I'm succeeding in reading what you meant rather than what you wrote. > Our exchange student from Japan, circa 1974, told us that the Japanese see no > inconsistency in one person being simultaneously Buddhist, Shinto and > Christian....r A friend of mine who's lived in Japan told me that that if you survey Japanese adults as to whether they're Buddhist, Shinto, or Christian, check all that apply, the average number of checks per person will be greater than 2. -- Jerry Friedman >> the Omrud filted: > .... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > check all that apply, the average number of checks per person will be > greater than 2. Yes, according to the CIA Factbook, the breakdown of religion in Japan is as follows: Shintoism 83.9%, Buddhism 71.4%, Christianity 2%, other 7.8%. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html Note that Shintoism and Buddhism were thoroughly intertwined in pre-Meiji Japan. Many deities have both a Shintoist and a Buddhist identity. Many rituals are the same (e.g., incense burning, bell ringing, or painting the eye of the Daruma doll). One might say that it was a single syncretic religion. It as only during the Meiji that the government started a purification campaign on Shintoism and made it into the state religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > Our exchange student from Japan, circa 1974, told us that the Japanese see no > inconsistency in one person being simultaneously Buddhist, Shinto and > Christian....r Makes just as much sense as any other religious belief. SignatureHi, I'm Gary Cooper, but not the Gary Cooper that's dead. >> There's a considerable market for Christian weddings in Japan, white >> dress, bridesmaids, veils etc. even if my Japanese friends seem to have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is far cheaper than a Shinto wedding. And to many Japanese, all > religions are just as valid as the others. In the American Japanese circle, they would probably go to a real Church and have a real Christian wedding. In the US, many pastors would perform a wedding for people who are not Christians. As for the couple themselves, they are most probably a-religious but want to blend in to the local society. Also, the bride wants to wear pretty clothes. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > [...] > There's a considerable market for Christian weddings in Japan, white > dress, bridesmaids, veils etc. even if my Japanese friends seem to have > had Shinto weddings with the bride in an elaborate kimono and the groom > in Western morning dress. Similar situation in HK and other places with enough Cosmopolitan Chinese. The bride gets to wear a white wedding dress, a evening gown, a traditional Chinese wedding gown, and a Cheongsam -- the first in the Marriage Registrar or Church, and all in the banquet afterwards. Each change of clothing is following by rounds of pictures, naturally. Never mind that white is the traditional mourning color in the Chinese culture, a woman's desire to wear pretty clothes is not to be denied. (They won't wear white flowers in their hair though.) Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr Tak To filted: >> [...] >> There's a considerable market for Christian weddings in Japan, white [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >to be denied. (They won't wear white flowers in their hair >though.) But the socks!...what about the socks?...r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >>>> Except on the bases that a random person in the US is likely to >>>> "come from a Christian background" and that "Christian moral [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >The Japanese celebrate Christmas (though not officially, I >suspect). Go figure. Some aspects of Christmas celebrations have been adopted in unexpected place. Pictures inside the Leopold Cafe in Mumbai following its tagetting in the 26/11 terrorist attacks showed a Christmas tree in a corner. Mumbai is predominantly Hindu. Christians are just a few percent of the population. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>> Except on the bases that a random person in the US is likely to >>>>> "come from a Christian background" and that "Christian moral [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > corner. Mumbai is predominantly Hindu. Christians are just a few percent > of the population. And a Christmas tree is a Christian thing? What happened to Yule? Even druids had a thing about green things in the middle of winter. There is not a lot about Christmas that is not pagan except the words of the carols and the crib. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister (in sci.lang): > And a Christmas tree is a Christian thing? The tradition of the Christmas tree as it is today known is fairly young. It was established by Martin Luther as a Protestant counterpart for the Catholic Nativity scheme. Luther established the Christmas tree as symbol of Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree#Origin> Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 89: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7NELaWAg1Y> My favourite # 44: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkvCDCOGzGc> >>>> Except on the bases that a random person in the US is likely to >>>> "come from a Christian background" and that "Christian moral [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The Japanese celebrate Christmas (though not officially, I > suspect). Go figure. Japanese celebrate Christmas in the secular sense: parties (like New Year Parties in the US), gifts for kids, Christmas decorations (more so in stores than in homes), Santa Claus, Christmas cards, Christmas songs, etc. Some non-Christians might even to a Midnite Mass for an exotic experience. This is hardly unique in Metropolitan non-Christian places that have a high tolerance of religion divergence. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >Okay. As long as we're agreed that there's nothing at all unusual >about non-Christian Americans identifying with the holiday or for >Americans in general (Christian or non-Christian) not thinking of it >in any was as a religious holiday. U.S. Thanksgiving used to be an occasion to worship the Almighty, the well-known and generally benevolent Deity. U.S. Thanksgiving is now evidently still an occasion to worship the Almighty, but that concept is now represented by the U.S. people themselves. Signature(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links; Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. > U.S. Thanksgiving used to be an occasion to worship the Almighty, the > well-known and generally benevolent Deity. I see very little evidence that the deity in question should be considered "generally benevolent." Only about 1/2 a :-) on that one... Bob M. >>>>> Yes, I was giving those specific examples (of being thankful for >>>>> good fortune and towards other humans) to show how thankfulness [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Thanksgiving and reflect on what they're thankful for, the statement > left me dumbfounded. So I think that a randomly picked non-Christian is unlikely to have the same "thank the god _for_everything_" feeling on Thanksgiving as a Christian. I might be wrong of course. But what are the reasons that you think I am wrong? >>> I'm not Christian and don't come from a Christian background and >>> I've never found (modern) Thanksgiving, which I and my family have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (reminding people to be grateful to the Christian god (or any god) for > everything), it may be. For the rest of us, it isn't. You read my "sense" wrong. I did not say people nowadays "use" Thanksgiving to remind themselves to be grateful to God. I said the Thanksgiving holiday _was_ set up by people like Lincoln who wanted it to remind people to be grateful to God (though not for this purpose alone), and that people nowadays are actually being reminded by the holiday to be grateful to God. ----- ------ >>>> Note that other faiths might also have omni-gratefulness but >>>> the Thanksgiving tradition is probably too foreign to their [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > then the Thanksgiving tradition (which is the basis of other holidays, > as well) is clearly able to trigger it. Being "omni-grateful" is being grateful _for_everything_. It is distinct from being grateful for specific events. It is a trained exercise -- one is taught to find things to be grateful for regardless of how bad things are in general. One might have lost a fortune but one still has good health. One might be sick but at least one is not dying. One might be dying but he has good children at one's side. Etc. While feeling fortunate and feeling omni-grateful both have at their origin the need for equanimity to face the vicissitude of life, they are still different in the matter of agency/intention. ----- ------ >>>> Also, not that it matters much, but I doubt that there are too >>>> many people who feel thankful to "the world". As someone else has [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > were one in which the difference were due to another person, you would > feel grateful to them. I disagree. Being grateful to a specific person for a specific event is not the same as being grateful to "the world"/God for one's general well being. >>> Later, one learns that it's a human reflex to infer from a state >>> that there's an agency that deserves credit or blame for that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > notion of an agency that can be benevolent or malevolent or which can > be petitioned. I agree with the second part. As for the first part, it is not "most religions" that matters but "most non-Christians". ----- ----- >>> And that even people who don't personify (or unify) that agency >>> feel it. And that some call that agency "fortune" and when they're [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Whereas I think that you're splitting up one feeling based on the > presumed agency involved. Not so much which agency as whether there is an agency (intention) in the first place. ----- ----- >> People don't feel the need to thank fate, even though they are happy >> that fate favors them. > > I didn't say that people felt the need to thank fate. I said that > they are thankful to fortune. And they personify it all the time, > beseech it, curse it, etc. A lot of people, at moments of urgency, would wish for a special agency to exist and for them to appeal to. However, afterwards, with some reflection, they would likely cease to believe in the agency, or see the agency as part of a greater agency/mechanism. Thus, while some Christians might personify Lady Luck at the card table, it is still God that they thank on Thanksgiving. Note also the difference of expectation. One does not thank Lady Luck if one loses money at the card table, but one is extremely grateful to God for saving one's life in a hold-up in which the same money is taken away. ----- ----- >>>>>> The institutionalization of an annual day of gratefulness >>>>>> is thus Christian in nature. In other words, one who [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Okay. Also, while I might feel fortunate in moments of reflection, Thanksgiving Day does not particularly make me contemplate on my fortune. ----- ----- >>>>> Entirely secular people often want to acknowledge private emotions >>>>> publicly - [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Okay. As long as we're agreed that there's nothing at all unusual > about non-Christian Americans identifying with the holiday Not odd or unreasonable, but how common? I think this largely depends on how much the individual wants to assimilate into whatever is perceived as the culture specific to the holiday (Christian, white, etc). For example, I am doubtful that too many native Americans would feel like to thank their god particularly on that day. (This is what I meant by feeling that someone might feel that the tradition is "too foreign".) > or for > Americans in general (Christian or non-Christian) not thinking of it > in any was as a religious holiday. Agree, not unusual at all. However, note that my definition of a Christian holiday does not depend on the opinion of the people who celebrate the holiday. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >>>>>> Yes, I was giving those specific examples (of being thankful for >>>>>> good fortune and towards other humans) to show how thankfulness [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>>>>> feeling that they've got it a lot better than they did before, or >>>>>> than other people do now. >>>>> My point is that "reminded gratefulness" is Christian in nature >>>>> and is part of the "celebration" as much as the turkey dinner >>>>> is. People who can be reminded to be thankful on Thanksgiving >>>>> probably come from Christian backgrounds and identify with >>>>> Christian moral values. >>>> Except on the bases that a random person in the US is likely to >>>> "come from a Christian background" and that "Christian moral >>>> values" have a significant overlap with non-Christian moral values, >>>> that's an extraordinary statement. >>> ?? Do you mean "meaningless" or "inane" instead? >> Maybe "flabbergasting"? With all of the non-Christians that >> celebrate Thanksgiving and reflect on what they're thankful for, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thanksgiving as a Christian. I might be wrong of course. But > what are the reasons that you think I am wrong? First off, when you said People who can be reminded to be thankful on Thanksgiving probably come from Christian backgrounds and identify with Christian moral values. I was reading that as everyday, garden-variety "thankful" rather than Tak-To-"thankful", which apparently requires "thanking a god". And it's not clear that a "randomly picked Christian" is going to have your feeling. Indeed, I suspect that a rather small minority even of Christians in the US go into Thanksgiving with a "this is an opportunity to thank God" notion. They just reflect on what they're thankful for. (If that.) But among religious non-Christians, I don't think that there's any problem with Tak-To-thankfulness. Observant Jews, for example, say blessings before and after every meal, and would probably include a Shechecheyanu ("Blessed are you, Adonai our god, king of the universe, who has kept us alive and sustained us and enabled us to reach this occasion") as they would at any such occasion. Followers of other religions also seem to thank their gods for success and fortune and plenty and food and pretty much everything else. >>>> I'm not Christian and don't come from a Christian background and >>>> I've never found (modern) Thanksgiving, which I and my family have [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > people nowadays are actually being reminded by the holiday to be > grateful to God. Lincoln being not particularly religious, I'd be very surprised if he used it that way, but the people who first proposed the holiday certainly did. But I don't see how I read your sense wrong. The people you talk about who "are actually being reminded by the holiday to be grateful to God" are what I referred to as "the minority who still use it that way". I'll allow that for them it may still be a religious holiday. It isn't for the rest of us. The phrase "good-bye" started out as a Christian religious statement. I'm sure that there are still hear the "God be with you" in it. Would you say that it is currently a religious wish? >>>>> Note that other faiths might also have omni-gratefulness but the >>>>> Thanksgiving tradition is probably too foreign to their [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > least one is not dying. One might be dying but he has good children > at one's side. Etc. "I wept that I had no shoes until I met a man who had no feet"-type of stuff? Nothing particularly Christian there and nothing that needs an agency to feel grateful to. Reminding people that "At least we've got each other" is probably one of the main uses of Thanksgiving in many households where little else is going right. > While feeling fortunate and feeling omni-grateful both have at their > origin the need for equanimity to face the vicissitude of life, they > are still different in the matter of agency/intention. >>>>> Also, not that it matters much, but I doubt that there are too >>>>> many people who feel thankful to "the world". As someone else has [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > event is not the same as being grateful to "the world"/God for > one's general well being. Okay, then we disagree. I maintain that the *feeling* is precisely the same. >>>> Later, one learns that it's a human reflex to infer from a state >>>> that there's an agency that deserves credit or blame for that [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Thus, while some Christians might personify Lady Luck at the card > table, it is still God that they thank on Thanksgiving. Right. I might go so far as to say that many Christians (and followers of other religions) forget (or have failed to internalize) that that particular agency used to satisfy the reflex is, in fact, just as imaginary as the others. > Note also the difference of expectation. One does not thank Lady > Luck if one loses money at the card table, but one is extremely > grateful to God for saving one's life in a hold-up in which the same > money is taken away. And, conversely, one does not typically thank God if one loses money at the card table, but one considers oneself extremely fortunate for surving a hold-up in which the same money is taken away. >>>>>>> The institutionalization of an annual day of gratefulness >>>>>>> is thus Christian in nature. In other words, one who [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Not odd or unreasonable, but how common? I cannot recall ever having met a non-Christian native-born (or even naturalized) American who doesn't identify with it. > I think this largely depends on how much the individual wants to > assimilate into whatever is perceived as the culture specific to the > holiday (Christian, white, etc). For example, I am doubtful that > too many native Americans would feel like to thank their god > particularly on that day. No, but they celebrate the holiday and probably reflect on what they're thankful for, like the rest of us. > (This is what I meant by feeling that someone might feel that the > tradition is "too foreign".) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Christian holiday does not depend on the opinion of the people who > celebrate the holiday. Understood. It's a bit of a strange definition that requires neither those in or out of the religion to consider it such, but it's your definition. > > I did not say people nowadays "use" Thanksgiving to remind > > themselves to be grateful to God. I said the Thanksgiving holiday [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > used it that way, but the people who first proposed the holiday > certainly did. Lincoln's Thanksgiving proclamation was certainly worded to promote Thanksgiving to God: "They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union." Of course, Lincoln's Thanksgiving proclamation was written by Secretary of State William Seward, so I'm not sure how much it reflects what he believed or wanted other people to believe. For all I know, it could be that it was just a proclamation of a national day off that he designated to Seward without really caring about the wording. >>> I did not say people nowadays "use" Thanksgiving to remind >>> themselves to be grateful to God. I said the Thanksgiving holiday [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > off that he designated to Seward without really caring about the > wording. I'd think that it's prudent for a politician to allude to God occasionally. It would be impossible for an atheist to be elected to political office in the USA, I think. SignatureSkitt (AmE) > I'd think that it's prudent for a politician to allude to God occasionally. > It would be impossible for an atheist to be elected to political office in > the USA, I think. There have been a few. Culbert Olson (Governor-CA) was an avowed atheist and refused to say "so help me God" during his swearing in. Current US Congressman Pete Stark is openly atheist. Your general point is right, though; many American politicians seem to play up their public displays of religion for political reasons. >I'd think that it's prudent for a politician to allude to God occasionally. >It would be impossible for an atheist to be elected to political office in >the USA, I think. That will be a surprise to Rep. Pete Stark(D) from your general area in California. Stark is very open about being an atheist and has was named "Humanist of the Year" in 2008 by the American Humanist Association. Stark's in the news now because he was passed over for as permanent Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to replace Charles Rangel. He was not passed over because he is an atheist, though. He's quite controversial in many areas. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> I'd think that it's prudent for a politician to allude to God >> occasionally. It would be impossible for an atheist to be elected to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Rangel. He was not passed over because he is an atheist, though. > He's quite controversial in many areas. I think Pete Stark's convictions were not known to most of his electorate when he first ran for office. It also helps that he is a Democrat in a highly Democratic state. I don't think his then Republican opponents played the atheist card. Pete established and proved himself in the office before he let on about his views on religion. Read http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-03-14/news/17235967_1_atheist-secular-coalition- political-suicide Among other things, that article says: But such a declaration carries plenty of political risk. Last month, a USA Today/Gallup poll noted that fewer than half of Americans said they would vote for an atheist candidate for president even if he were "well qualified." In the same poll, 95 percent said they would vote for a similarly qualified Catholic candidate, 92 percent for a Jewish candidate and 72 percent for a Mormon candidate. The article also says that the poll showed that "anti-atheism remains the last remaining prejudice that a majority of Americans don't mind fessing up to." I concede that there are exceptions to what I previously alleged. Two of them, even. SignatureSkitt (AmE) never ran for elected office <snip> >It would be impossible for an atheist to be elected to political office in >the USA, I think. That is, IMO, a sad commentary on the flexibility of American thought, if it is true. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That is, IMO, a sad commentary on the flexibility of American thought, > if it is true. Can you imagine someone ending every speech with "Nothing bless America"? SignatureJames >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Can you imagine someone ending every speech with "Nothing bless America"? "God bless goddamn America" - Yonko, a good ole boy. >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Can you imagine someone ending every speech with "Nothing bless America"? Um... with the possible exception of sneezes, atheists don't actually wish blessings on people or countries, so they would hardly be likely to invoke the the god Nothing who reigns supreme in the intellectual sphere of politics. SignatureRob Bannister >>> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >invoke the the god Nothing who reigns supreme in the intellectual sphere >of politics. Even with sneezes, I say "gesundheit", which means good health to you, instead of the bog-standard "God bless you". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> <snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Even with sneezes, I say "gesundheit", which means good health to you, > instead of the bog-standard "God bless you". "Bog" is standard Russian for "god". There's no escaping him. SignatureJames >>>>> <snip> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >"Bog" is standard Russian for "god". There's no escaping him. Christ, no. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> Can you imagine someone ending every speech with "Nothing bless America"? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Even with sneezes, I say "gesundheit", which means good health to you, >instead of the bog-standard "God bless you". The default around here is simply "Bless you". No Deities are invoked. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>>> Can you imagine someone ending every speech with "Nothing bless America"? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The default around here is simply "Bless you". No Deities are > invoked. I don't see how you can bless or wish a blessing on someone or something without a religious action. The main meanings of "bless" seem to be: 1 : to hallow or consecrate by religious rite or word 2 : to hallow with the sign of the cross or other religious gesture 3 : to invoke divine care for Meanings 1. and 2. might appear to mean nothing more than an empty word or gesture, but the "hallowing" part implies that a supernatural being is involved. I am quite prepared to believe that is you if no other being is around. SignatureRob Bannister Being careful what he says about Katy just in case > I don't see how you can bless or wish a blessing on someone or something > without a religious action. The main meanings of "bless" seem to be: > 1 : to hallow or consecrate by religious rite or word > 2 : to hallow with the sign of the cross or other religious gesture > 3 : to invoke divine care for M-W orders senses historically and marks sense 6 as archaic, so sense 5 must be plenty old: "to confer prosperity or happiness upon." No supernatural protections required. ¬R >> I don't see how you can bless or wish a blessing on someone or something >> without a religious action. The main meanings of "bless" seem to be: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >5 must be plenty old: "to confer prosperity or happiness upon." No >supernatural protections required. Depending on who or what you think is doing the conferring. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> I don't see how you can bless or wish a blessing on someone or something >> without a religious action. The main meanings of "bless" seem to be: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ¬R Are you sure? Who does the conferring? The person doing the blessing. How does he or she do it? Using supernatural powers. When I say "Bless you" (which is usually after a sneeze and is in order to hinder devils and imps from entering my friend's mouth and/or nose while they are unprotected), I am usually careful to add "But I'm not really qualified", so my friend won't continue in blissful ignorance of his/her danger. SignatureRob Bannister >>> I don't see how you can bless or wish a blessing on someone or something >>> without a religious action. The main meanings of "bless" seem to be: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >really qualified", so my friend won't continue in blissful ignorance of >his/her danger. That is eminently fair of you, but wouldn't "gesundheit" save you some time? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> I don't see how you can bless or wish a blessing on someone or something >>>> without a religious action. The main meanings of "bless" seem to be: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > That is eminently fair of you, but wouldn't "gesundheit" save you some > time? It would indeed, but it would not necessarily be understood by all, whilst others might consider the use of foreign language conceited. SignatureRob Bannister snip >>...wouldn't "gesundheit" save you some >> time? > >It would indeed, but it would not necessarily be understood by all, >whilst others might consider the use of foreign language conceited. Since the word is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, I think it is one of the many words that has passed over from German to English, unchanged. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >I don't see how you can bless or wish a blessing on someone or something >without a religious action. The main meanings of "bless" seem to be: >1 : to hallow or consecrate by religious rite or word >2 : to hallow with the sign of the cross or other religious gesture >3 : to invoke divine care for >Meanings 1. and 2. might appear to mean nothing more than an empty word >or gesture, but the "hallowing" part implies that a supernatural being >is involved. I am quite prepared to believe that is you if no other >being is around. Then, I suppose, that you don't see how you can say "Get f.cked!" to someone without there being a sexual connotation. Whether it's "Bless you" or "f.ck you", the expression is independent of the root meaning. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> I don't see how you can bless or wish a blessing on someone or >> something without a religious action. The main meanings of "bless" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Whether it's "Bless you" or "f.ck you", the expression is independent > of the root meaning. I agree that the expressions *can* be used independently of the root meaning and should not automatically be interpreted in a literal sense. However, the root meaning is always potentially there and can be evoked in some listener's mind even if the speaker did not intend it. A person who sneezes and hears "Bless you" may well think, "How nice that there are still people who believe in God." A person who is told to get f.cked may well think, "Oh, I'd love that right now." SignatureJames > I agree that the expressions *can* be used independently of the root > meaning and should not automatically be interpreted in a literal sense. > However, the root meaning is always potentially there and can be evoked > in some listener's mind even if the speaker did not intend it. As a good atheist, I avoid "bless you." I will genreally say "Excuse me" if I sneeze, and it forced into a situation where I feel I have to say something when someone else sneezes, I'll say "Salud!" I don't understand why we are supposed to bless a sneeze, but should be excusing out burps, farts, and other emminations. No, I understand why, I just think it's stupid. > A person who sneezes and hears "Bless you" may well think, "How nice > that there are still people who believe in God." Exactly why I avoid it. > A person who is told to > get f.cked may well think, "Oh, I'd love that right now." SignatureWhat would be the point of cyphering messages that very clever enemies couldn't break? You'd end up not knowing what they thought you thought they were thinking... --The Fifth Elephant >A person who sneezes and hears "Bless you" may well think, "How nice >that there are still people who believe in God." That's a totally bizarre (and rather non-Gricean) interpretation.... -GAWollman SignatureGarrett 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 >> I don't see how you can bless or wish a blessing on someone or something >> without a religious action. The main meanings of "bless" seem to be: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Whether it's "Bless you" or "f.ck you", the expression is independent > of the root meaning. There's definitely rooting involved in one of those. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> Can you imagine someone ending every speech with "Nothing bless America"? >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >The default around here is simply "Bless you". No Deities are >invoked. There are, Katy, since that means "God bless you". Shirley, you aren't doing the blessing, for that would be presumptuous beyond toleration, even for an atheist like myself. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>Even with sneezes, I say "gesundheit", which means good health to >>>you, instead of the bog-standard "God bless you". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > aren't doing the blessing, for that would be presumptuous beyond > toleration, even for an atheist like myself. While it doesn't fit in this situation, I'd note that in Judaism, most of the time it's people, not God who do the blessing. Most of what they bless, of course, is God. All throughout the day, an observant Jew will say (in Hebrew) Blessed is Adonai, our God, king of the universe who [has sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us to] ... and the Sabbath service traditionally begins with the call (in Hebrew): [Let us] bless Adonai, the blessed one. and resonse: Blessed is Adonai, the blessed one, forever and ever. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Usenet is like Tetris for people 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |who still remember how to read. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> Even with sneezes, I say "gesundheit", which means good health to >>>> you, instead of the bog-standard "God bless you". [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Blessed is Adonai, the blessed one, forever and ever. But is the person praying actually conferring a blessing or simple stating a fact? SignatureRob Bannister >>>>> Even with sneezes, I say "gesundheit", which means good health to >>>>> you, instead of the bog-standard "God bless you". [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > But is the person praying actually conferring a blessing or simple > stating a fact? Does a god really need blessing? I mean, who would be qualified to do that? Supergod? Or is it that anyone can bless anyone or anything else? Then again, does blessing really mean anything at all? SignatureSkitt (AmE) blessed with an inquisitive mind >> While it doesn't fit in this situation, I'd note that in Judaism, >> most of the time it's people, not God who do the blessing. Most of >> what they bless, of course, is God. All throughout the day, an >> observant Jew will say (in Hebrew) >> Blessed is Adonai, our God, king of the universe who [has >> sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us to] ... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But is the person praying actually conferring a blessing or simple > stating a fact? It's never been quite clear to me what's meant by the word, but the instruction to the minyan is "bless (3pl, imper)", so presumably whatever the congregation does in response is "blessing", and it's the same thing they do in their daily brochot. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I need to get a new colander. My 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |old one has holes in it. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> While it doesn't fit in this situation, I'd note that in Judaism, >>> most of the time it's people, not God who do the blessing. Most of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > whatever the congregation does in response is "blessing", and it's the > same thing they do in their daily brochot. I'm confused - "3pl, imper"? - Let them bless? or May they be blessed? SignatureRob Bannister >>>> While it doesn't fit in this situation, I'd note that in Judaism, >>>> most of the time it's people, not God who do the blessing. Most of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I'm confused - "3pl, imper"? - Let them bless? or May they be blessed? Sorry. "2", not "3". "You guys bless", although it's typically translated as "Let us bless". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The law of supply and demand tells us 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that when the price of something is Palo Alto, CA 94304 |artificially set below market level, |there will soon be none of that thing kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |left--as you may have noticed the (650)857-7572 |last time you tried to buy something |for nothing. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | P.J. O'Rourke >>>>> While it doesn't fit in this situation, I'd note that in Judaism, >>>>> most of the time it's people, not God who do the blessing. Most of [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Sorry. "2", not "3". "You guys bless", although it's typically > translated as "Let us bless". Phew. You had me worried there. Not like you to make that kind of mistake. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> It's never been quite clear to me what's meant by the word, but >>>> the instruction to the minyan is "bless (3pl, imper)", so [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Phew. You had me worried there. Not like you to make that kind of > mistake. Unfortunately, it's very much like me to make that kind of mistake. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |First Law of Anthropology: 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | If they're doing something you Palo Alto, CA 94304 | don't understand, it's either an | isolated lunatic, a religious kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | ritual, or art. (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Chuck Riggs filted: >instead of the bog-standard "God bless you". That may be our first Russian-English bilingual pun....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >Chuck Riggs filted: >> >>instead of the bog-standard "God bless you". > >That may be our first Russian-English bilingual pun....r Is a pun a pun if not intended? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>Chuck Riggs filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Is a pun a pun if not intended? Sometimes that's the best kind... Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>Chuck Riggs filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Sometimes that's the best kind... ...for the observer, perhaps. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> Chuck Riggs filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Is a pun a pun if not intended? I'd say there's a punness property/quality which is independent of intentions. Similarly, a statement lacking this property is not a pun, even when it was intended to be one. :-) pjk >>> Chuck Riggs filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >a pun, even when it was intended to be one. :-) >pjk Well put. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> <snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Even with sneezes, I say "gesundheit", which means good health to you, > instead of the bog-standard "God bless you". Living where you do, I'm surprised people don't suspect you of being a Nazi. I only use "Gesundheit" when I'm among German or Yiddish speakers. SignatureRob Bannister <snip> >> Even with sneezes, I say "gesundheit", which means good health to you, >> instead of the bog-standard "God bless you". > >Living where you do, I'm surprised people don't suspect you of being a >Nazi. Not a German? >I only use "Gesundheit" when I'm among German or Yiddish speakers. Americans are different, at least the ones I've known in the Washington, DC area are. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Can you imagine someone ending every speech with "Nothing bless America"? No, but I can imagine politicians ending their speeches, at some distant date, with "Let us be thankful for our fine educational system", for without it, they'll be thinking, if I am right, people would still be clinging to religious superstition. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > >> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > system", for without it, they'll be thinking, if I am right, people > would still be clinging to religious superstition. The "God bless America" tag goes back no further than Reagan -- the first divorced president, a nominal Roman Catholic. >> >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >The "God bless America" tag goes back no further than Reagan -- the >first divorced president, a nominal Roman Catholic. IINM, there are references to God in the Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence, both written well before the Gipper's day. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 04:34:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Declaration of Independence, both written well before the Gipper's > day. The texts are easily available on line. The closest you can come is "Creator." And the prohibitions of a religious test, and of establishment. And you won't find a president ending a speech -- let alone every public appearance -- with "God bless America" before Reagan. (When did the Irving Berlin tune become ubiquitous?) >> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 04:34:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > public appearance -- with "God bless America" before Reagan. (When did > the Irving Berlin tune become ubiquitous?) Actually, wasn't Reagan's tag typically "God bless the United States of America"? You may be right that nobody before Reagan used that particular phrasing, but that's only because he made formulaic what had been more creative. From the inaugural addresses: Ironically, Carter, 1977, didn't mention God other than in a Bible quotation near the beginning of the speech. But nobody questioned his religiosity. Others have tended to end with it (and sprinkle it inside): Let us go forward from here confident in hope, strong in our faith in one another, sustained by our faith in God who created us, and striving always to serve His purpose. [Nixon, 1973] ... let us go forward, firm in our faith, steadfast in our purpose, cautious of the dangers; but sustained by our confidence in the will of God and the promise of man. [Nixon, 1969] Johnson, 1965, doesn't end with a reference to God but mentions "God" three times. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own. [Kennedy, 1963] Eisenhower, 1957, doesn't end with a reference to God, but says Before all else, we seek, upon our common labor as a nation, the blessings of Almighty God. This is the hope that beckons us onward in this century of trial. This is the work that awaits us all, to be done with bravery, with charity, and with prayer to Almighty God. [Eisenhower, 1953] Steadfast in our faith in the Almighty, we will advance toward a world where man's freedom is secure. To that end we will devote our strength, our resources, and our firmness of resolve. With God's help, the future of mankind will be assured in a world of justice, harmony, and peace. [Truman, 1949] The Almighty God has blessed our land in many ways. He has given our people stout hearts and strong arms with which to strike mighty blows for freedom and truth. He has given to our country a faith which has become the hope of all peoples in an anguished world. So we pray to Him now for the vision to see our way clearly--to see the way that leads to a better life for ourselves and for all our fellow men--to the achievement of His will to peace on earth. [Roosevelt, 1945] As Americans, we go forward, in the service of our country, by the will of God. [Roosevelt, 1941] While this duty rests upon me I shall do my utmost to speak their purpose and to do their will, seeking Divine guidance to help us each and every one to give light to them that sit in darkness and to guide our feet into the way of peace. [Roosevelt, 1937] In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come. [Roosevelt, 1933] I ask the help of Almighty God in this service to my country to which you have called me. [Hoover, 1929] The higher state to which she seeks the allegiance of all mankind is not of human, but of divine origin. She cherishes no purpose save to merit the favor of Almighty God. [Coolidge, 1925] I accept my part with single-mindedness of purpose and humility of spirit, and implore the favor and guidance of God in His Heaven. With these I am unafraid, and confidently face the future. I have taken the solemn oath of office on that passage of Holy Writ wherein it is asked: "What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" This I plight to God and country. [Harding, 1921] Wilson, 1917, doesn't end with a reference to God but mentions "God" twice. God helping me, I will not fail them, if they will but counsel and sustain me! [Wilson, 1913] I invoke the considerate sympathy and support of my fellow- citizens and the aid of the Almighty God in the discharge of my responsible duties. [Taft, 1909] Theodore Roosevelt, 1905 was the last president who didn't actually mention God by name in his inaugural address, though he did make a reference to the Giver of Good who has blessed us with the conditions which have enabled us to achieve so large a measure of well-being and of happiness. and so on back to Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally _conspicuous_ in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend. [Washington, 1789] Regardless of personal feelings, pretty much everybody's felt it prudent to give religious people something that allows them to say "He's one of us." SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"The Dynamics of Interbeing and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Monological Imperatives in 'Dick Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and Jane' : A Study in Psychic |Transrelational Modes." kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Calvin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 04:34:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] > prudent to give religious people something that allows them to say > "He's one of us." My god you have a lot of free time to waste. How does the fact that presidents have always invoked the Christian God alter the fact that it was only the hypocrite Reagan who made the invocation formulaic and obligatory? Can you imagine what their enemies would have said if Clinton or Obama failed to include the formula? Do you not remember the "flag pin" flap? Is it not ironic that it gathered momentum just after PBS preceded the NYPO's concert in Pyongyang with a mini-documentary on North Korea that highlighted the ubiquity and obligatoriness of patriotic lapel pins there? > My god you have a lot of free time to waste. That's really funny, coming from you! >> My god you have a lot of free time to waste. > > That's really funny, coming from you! The astonishing thing is that he demands documentary proof of everything outside his preconceptions, then makes snide remarks about people who do it. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk > >> My god you have a lot of free time to waste. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > outside his preconceptions, then makes snide remarks about people who do > it. In this case, no evidence (let alone "documentary proof," whatever that may be) was provided that the hypocrite Reagan's formula was used by any earlier president, either in ipsissima verba or to routinely end virtually every public appearance. >> >> My god you have a lot of free time to waste. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > by any earlier president, either in ipsissima verba or to routinely > end virtually every public appearance. And, indeed, the article that I spent so much "free time" on (going to one site and cutting and pasting a few paragraphs) actually agreed with him You may be right that nobody before Reagan used that particular phrasing, but that's only because he made formulaic what had been more creative. while noting that, strictly speaking, the line used wasn't the one reported: Actually, wasn't Reagan's tag typically "God bless the United States of America"? and *then* going on to state that the actual topic of the thread, stemming from the claim that "It would be impossible for an atheist to be elected to political office in the USA" isn't really materially countered by the fact that the particular formulation only goes back to Reagan, as presidents have been ending their important speeches in essentially the same way going all the way back. Reagan's simply made it so they didn't have to think about how to say it differently each time. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Never ascribe to malice that which 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can adequately be explained by Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stupidity. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> My god you have a lot of free time to waste. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > outside his preconceptions, then makes snide remarks about people who do > it. Yeah, he thinks he owns usenet. > > >> My god you have a lot of free time to waste. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yeah, he thinks he owns usenet. Note that it was "Ramblin Bob" who appointed me "dictator-for-life" of sci.lang, showing that in "Ramblin Bob"'s eyes, I own sci.lang. "Ramblin Bob" has been banned from posting in sci.lang by his very own "dictator for life," yet he continues to defy the idol that he himself set up. > > > >> My god you have a lot of free time to waste. > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "dictator for life," yet he continues to defy the idol that he himself > set up. Still haven't passed Sarcasm Detection 101? >> IINM, there are references to God in the Constitution and in the >> Declaration of Independence, both written well before the Gipper's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >public appearance -- with "God bless America" before Reagan. (When did >the Irving Berlin tune become ubiquitous?) During World War II, as sung by Kate Smith. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 04:48:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > During World War II, as sung by Kate Smith. No. It was a joke that some team in Philadelphia used Kate Smith before every game. When was that? Nowadays it's as if it has replaced the long, unsingable one as The Anthem. >> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 04:48:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >No. Why do you say, "No"? Are you refuting that Kate Smith sang it or that it was during WW2? >It was a joke that some team in Philadelphia used Kate Smith before >every game. When was that? Never heard of it. But I'm not much of a baseball fan. >Nowadays it's as if it has replaced the long, unsingable one as The >Anthem. Odd. I rarely hear the song these days, and never when the SSB should have been played. As an instrumental only GBA isn't as anthemy as SSB. It's the words to GBA that are so sentimental. BTW, I have no trouble singing the SSB. @nd BTW, someone in some op-ed column this week noted that the Olympically much played "O Canada" is about the only national anthem you can hum. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >> >> IINM, there are references to God in the Constitution and in the > >> >> Declaration of Independence, both written well before the Gipper's [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Why do you say, "No"? Are you refuting that Kate Smith sang it or > that it was during WW2? I am not "refuting" anything. I am denying that the song became ubiquitous during WWII. > >It was a joke that some team in Philadelphia used Kate Smith before > >every game. When was that? > > Never heard of it. But I'm not much of a baseball fan. I didn't say anything about baseball. > >Nowadays it's as if it has replaced the long, unsingable one as The > >Anthem. > > Odd. I rarely hear the song these days, and never when the SSB > should have been played. As an instrumental only GBA isn't as > anthemy as SSB. It's the words to GBA that are so sentimental. Many BASEBALL teams use it at the seventh-inning stretch in place of "Take Me Out to the Ball Game." > BTW, I have no trouble singing the SSB. Singing it well? So you're probably a trained singer. > @nd BTW, someone in some op-ed column this week noted that the > Olympically much played "O Canada" is about the only national > anthem you can hum. Did they check out all 205 or so national anthems? Including the dozen or more that use the same tune as "America"? >> >> >And you won't find a president ending a speech -- let alone every >> >> >public appearance -- with "God bless America" before Reagan. (When did [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I am not "refuting" anything. I am denying that the song became >ubiquitous during WWII. Were you there? >> >It was a joke that some team in Philadelphia used Kate Smith before >> >every game. When was that? >> >> Never heard of it. But I'm not much of a baseball fan. > >I didn't say anything about baseball. Which shows how little a sports fan I am. >> >Nowadays it's as if it has replaced the long, unsingable one as The >> >Anthem. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Many BASEBALL teams use it at the seventh-inning stretch in place of >"Take Me Out to the Ball Game." Interesting. How many is "many"? > BTW, I have no trouble singing the SSB. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Did they check out all 205 or so national anthems? Including the dozen >or more that use the same tune as "America"? Good grief, you're literal. I, personally, take the "about" to indicate there could be others. I, myself, would be quite content if the SSB were replaced by "America the Beautiful" Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Hatunen filted: >>> @nd BTW, someone in some op-ed column this week noted that the >>> Olympically much played "O Canada" is about the only national [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Good grief, you're literal. I, personally, take the "about" to >indicate there could be others. It's certainly one of the world's more *presentable* anthems.... >I, myself, would be quite content if the SSB were replaced by >"America the Beautiful" Let's see, we've already got votes for: Star Spangled Banner - current titleholder, unsingable tune taken from a drinking song, harshly imperialistic lyrics God Bless America - upsetting (to some) religiosity America the Beautiful - better, but there's still that "God shed His grace" business My Country, 'Tis of Thee - same tune as "God Save the Queen", already pulling duty as the "national hymn" This Land Is Your Land - plagued with pinko associations Battle Hymn of the Republic - simultaneously nationalistic and religious, plus you have the whole "John Brown's Body" connection Clearly none of these is a perfect choice if we insist on universal acceptance...someone's got to sit down and write a new one....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >>I, myself, would be quite content if the SSB were replaced by >>"America the Beautiful" [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Clearly none of these is a perfect choice if we insist on universal > acceptance...someone's got to sit down and write a new one....r I vote for Woody Guthrie's.... SignatureSteve: Now, okay. I did say that monkeys could program Visual Basic. Leo: But not that all Visual Basic programmers are monkeys. Steve: Exactly. [Security Now 194] > Clearly none of these is a perfect choice if we insist on universal > acceptance...someone's got to sit down and write a new one....r Where are Michael Flanders and Donald Swann when you need them, eh? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard filted: >> Clearly none of these is a perfect choice if we insist on universal >> acceptance...someone's got to sit down and write a new one....r >> >Where are Michael Flanders and Donald Swann when you need them, eh? Actor/writer/comedian Albert Brooks once did a very funny routine about open auditions for a new national anthem...he reasoned that since it's a song for the common people, the common people should write it...by the time the bit ends, he's heard from an old man who simply changed the words of the Star-Spangled Banner ("While we stand here wai-ting/For the ball game to start"), a talentless amateur whose tune is that of "Heart and Soul", a disgruntled ghetto resident, a cheerful Mitch Miller/Liberace type with a coterie of shining-faced background singers, and a Vegas lounge singer whose spoken-word introduction alone is longer than any anthem has a right to be....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > Hatunen filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It's certainly one of the world's more *presentable* anthems.... In English. Ô Canada! Terre de nos aïeux, Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux! Car ton bras sait porter l'épée, Il sait porter la croix! Ton histoire est une épopée Des plus brillants exploits. Et ta valeur, de foi trempée, Protégera nos foyers et nos droits Protégera nos foyers et nos droits. Sword in one hand, cross in the other, valor steeped in faith. I wonder how non-Christian Canadians feel about that. >>I, myself, would be quite content if the SSB were replaced by >>"America the Beautiful" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > America the Beautiful - better, but there's still that "God shed His grace" > business Each verse is an appeal to God: God shed his grace on thee and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea. God mend thine every flaw, confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law. May God thy gold refine till all success be nobleness and every gain divine. > My Country, 'Tis of Thee - same tune as "God Save the Queen", already pulling > duty as the "national hymn" But interestingly, apparently only accidentally the same tune. The author stole it from Clementi, who took it from "God Save the King", but wasn't aware of the British anthem himself. > This Land Is Your Land - plagued with pinko associations > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Clearly none of these is a perfect choice if we insist on universal > acceptance...someone's got to sit down and write a new one....r SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There are just two rules of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |governance in a free society: Mind Palo Alto, CA 94304 |your own business. Keep your hands |to yourself. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> It's certainly one of the world's more *presentable* anthems.... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Sword in one hand, cross in the other, valor steeped in faith. I > wonder how non-Christian Canadians feel about that. They don't speak French. SignatureI worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my daughter] will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?' [Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/ ] >>> It's certainly one of the world's more *presentable* anthems.... >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > They don't speak French. Two solitudes. (See below*.) The difference came up in a TV panel discussion recently, and a Quebecker there pointed out that the French words date to the 19th century, never having been changed, and that francophone Quebeckers are perfectly indifferent to the anthem. The only time they hear it is at Canadiens hockey games; the rest of the time, they sing Vigneault's "Gens du Pays". Not with an invariable seriosity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tke4fr8Wnps&feature=related *As Yvon Deschamps said, he couldn't sing "Gens du Pays" to his boss, because "il comprendrait pas." >>> It's certainly one of the world's more *presentable* anthems.... >> >> Sword in one hand, cross in the other, valor steeped in faith. I >> wonder how non-Christian Canadians feel about that. > > They don't speak French. Actually, quite a number of French-speaking Jews from North Africa, Lebanon, and Syria moved to Quebec in the '50s. Other Jews in Quebec, like William Shatner, who grew up in Montreal, almost certainly speak French. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Revolution" has many definitions. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |From the looks of this, I'd say Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"going around in circles" comes |closest to applying... kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Richard M. Hartman (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> It's certainly one of the world's more *presentable* anthems.... >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >like William Shatner, who grew up in Montreal, almost certainly speak >French. I was a grad student at McGill University 1965-66 and my wife took a teaching job with the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal [*], teaching at Outremont High School. This being shortly after the Algerian War of Independence the Outremont district was heavily populated by French-speaking Jews (Pied Noir) who had fled Algeria. [*] At that time Montreal had two school boards, a Protestant and a Catholic board. Only Roman Catholics could attend or be employed by the Catholic school board, while the Protestant schools got everyone else, including Orthodox Christians. Some Protestant schools were conducted in French for French-speaking non-Catholics. But most qualified speakers of French in Quebec were Catholic so the Protestant schools had to look abroad for teachers of French. ("Abroad" including the rest of Canada.) The Jews made some efforts to have a Jewish school board. I have no idea of the current school arrangements in Montreal Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Actually, quite a number of French-speaking Jews from North Africa, > Lebanon, and Syria moved to Quebec in the '50s. Other Jews in Quebec, > like William Shatner, who grew up in Montreal, almost certainly speak > French. Does he ever sing in French? Just curious. SignatureAnd remember, while you're out there risking your life and limb through shot and shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a sucker you are. [Rufus T. Firefly] >> Actually, quite a number of French-speaking Jews from North Africa, >> Lebanon, and Syria moved to Quebec in the '50s. Other Jews in Quebec, >> like William Shatner, who grew up in Montreal, almost certainly speak >> French. > > Does he ever sing in French? Just curious. Squeeze his balls and he will. --oTTo-- Adam Funk filted: >> Actually, quite a number of French-speaking Jews from North Africa, >> Lebanon, and Syria moved to Quebec in the '50s. Other Jews in Quebec, >> like William Shatner, who grew up in Montreal, almost certainly speak >> French. > >Does he ever sing in French? Just curious. You could have stopped after the first four words and the question would be just as valid....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >Let's see, we've already got votes for: > >Star Spangled Banner - current titleholder, unsingable tune taken from a >drinking song, harshly imperialistic lyrics I think that's wrong, it's not imperialistic. People who say so seem to forget that it was written in the heat of a battle between the imperialistic British and the Americans as the former attacked a fort of the latter. It's about resistance to imperialism. It's not about *American* rockets and their red glare or American bombs' bursting in air. It's a song of joy and relief that the Americans survived. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Hatunen filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Clearly none of these is a perfect choice if we insist on universal > acceptance...someone's got to sit down and write a new one....r Aren't national anthems fun? We've got someone here agitating again to have Waltzing Matilda as ours. SignatureRob Bannister >> Hatunen filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Aren't national anthems fun? We've got someone here agitating again to > have Waltzing Matilda as ours. Yours always reminds me of "The Song of the Western Men". SignatureRay UK >>> Hatunen filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Yours always reminds me of "The Song of the Western Men". I think "God Bless the Prince of Wales" is a lot closer if not an exact match, at least as regards the melody. SignatureRob Bannister >> Hatunen filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Aren't national anthems fun? We've got someone here agitating again to > have Waltzing Matilda as ours. I wonder how many of them know what, in fact, was a matilda. pjk > > Hatunen filted: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Aren't national anthems fun? We've got someone here agitating again to > have Waltzing Matilda as ours. It would be a shame to replace Tie Me Kangaroo Down in that capacity. > > On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 04:48:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > It was a joke that some team in Philadelphia used Kate Smith before > every game. When was that? I don't know of a team that used it before every game. She's closely associated with the Philadelphia Flyers--there's even a statue of her outside the Spectrum. The Flyers play her recording of God Bless America in lieu of the Star Spangled Banner before some important games (a tradition that started in 1969), and she showed up in person several times during the 1970s to sing it. God Bless America has been played at Flyers home games just over 100 times in the 40ish years since the tradition started. The number of home games varies, but aside from strike years it's always been at least 35 regular season games as well as however many playoff games the Flyers participate in each year. So the Star Spangled Banner is still played at least 90% of the time, possibly over 95%. > Nowadays it's as if it has replaced the long, unsingable one as The > Anthem. The other sporting event where it's entered the popular consciousness is as the song played during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium; that tradition became culturally entrenched after the 9/11 attacks. They play it in addition to the standard rendition of the National Anthem prior to the game, not in place of the Anthem. >> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 04:34:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >The texts are easily available on line. Yup. >The closest you can come is "Creator." God by another name is just as godly. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> The closest you can come is "Creator." >> > God by another name is just as godly. That principle is asserted by freemasons, and masons have come under fire, and been driven from various religions, because of it. >>> >> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Declaration of Independence, both written well before the Gipper's >day. I don't believe there is a single mention of God in the US Constitution. In the DOI it's kind of a glancing mention in the preamble (so to speak): "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." And that's it. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * <snip> >It would be impossible for an atheist to be elected to political office in >the USA, I think. That is, IMO, a sad commentary on the flexibility of American thought, if it is true. Open-mindedness would be better than flexibility, I think, although I still have not found the word I want. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Open-mindedness would be better than flexibility, I think, although I > still have not found the word I want. There's not much open-mindedness in the fly-over part of the country, I think. Just look at the bible belt denizens. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >There's not much open-mindedness in the fly-over part of the country, I >think. Just look at the bible belt denizens. Now if I had said that, as I have, the AUE girls would be enraged. The AUE women, that is. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Open-mindedness would be better than flexibility, I think, although I > still have not found the word I want. Some people just cannot conceive the notion that morality need not be supernaturally based. I don't know what to call it either. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Some people just cannot conceive the notion that morality need >not be supernaturally based. I don't know what to call it either. My morality was derived from my parents' teachings, from my teachers in school, to a lesser extent what the Episcopalian Church taught me when I was young and from life's experiences later on, beginning with my time in Thomas Jefferson's Academical Village. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>>> Yes, I was giving those specific examples (of being thankful for >>>>>>> good fortune and towards other humans) to show how thankfulness [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > I was reading that as everyday, garden-variety "thankful" rather than > Tak-To-"thankful", which apparently requires "thanking a god". Prior to the above statement, I have already explained that the English word "thank" conflates several distinct meanings. If you do not follow (and I mean follow, not agree) that explanation, you are likely to misunderstand what the above sentence means. > Tak-To-"thankful", which apparently requires "thanking a god". And > it's not clear that a "randomly picked Christian" is going to have > your feeling. This is most curious. If you, as you said, took that the above statement to be about "garden variety thankfulness" and NOT "Tak-To-thankfulness", then why do you draw a conclusion about the latter at all? How are these two paragraphs of yours logically related? And when did I ever said that the "reminded gratefulness" is universal among Christians? > Indeed, I suspect that a rather small minority even of > Christians in the US go into Thanksgiving with a "this is an > opportunity to thank God" notion. They just reflect on what they're > thankful for. (If that.) I think a majority of Christians in the US go into Thanksgiving with the notion that they _ought_ to thankful (to God/agency) "for everything". > But among religious non-Christians, I don't think that there's any > problem with Tak-To-thankfulness. Observant Jews, for example, say > blessings before and after every meal, and would probably include a > Shechecheyanu ("Blessed are you, Adonai our god, king of the universe, > who has kept us alive and sustained us and enabled us to reach this > occasion") as they would at any such occasion. What does "such occasion" mean? And Thanksgiving is one because...? Perhaps you don't mean it that way, but by using the word "problem" you seem to imply that religious non-Christian not feeling particularly grateful to God (for everything) on Thanksgiving is "having a problem". Shouldn't the neutral position be that regious non-Christians _naturally_ do not have the feeling on that day? > Followers of other > religions also seem to thank their gods for success and fortune and > plenty and food and pretty much everything else. So, back to the question, what makes you think that a randomly picked non-Christians is more likely than not to have a "thank the God for everything" feeling on Thanksgiving? ----- ----- >>>>> I'm not Christian and don't come from a Christian background and >>>>> I've never found (modern) Thanksgiving, which I and my family have [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > used it that way, but the people who first proposed the holiday > certainly did. But I don't see how I read your sense wrong. You use the word "use", which implies a voluntary, purposeful decision. Having a feeling, OTOH, is involuntary! Lincoln _used_, people today _feel_. > people you talk about who "are actually being reminded by the holiday > to be grateful to God" are what I referred to as "the minority who > still use it that way". I'll allow that for them it may still be a > religious holiday. It isn't for the rest of us. As I said, there were multiple definitions of a religious holiday. (The context was that someone claims that he cannot even imagine a reason to call Thanksgiving a religious holiday.) Not that I agree with you on "minority". ----- ----- > The phrase "good-bye" started out as a Christian religious statement. > I'm sure that there are still hear the "God be with you" in it. Would > you say that it is currently a religious wish? AFAIK, no one has conferred on "good-bye" an official status with a religious purpose. ----- ----- >>>>>> Note that other faiths might also have omni-gratefulness but the >>>>>> Thanksgiving tradition is probably too foreign to their [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "I wept that I had no shoes until I met a man who had no feet"-type of > stuff? More like "I have no shoes, but I must tell myself that there are people with no feet". > Nothing particularly Christian there and nothing that needs an > agency to feel grateful to. Indeed, some people would just feel fortunate. Some people would, due to their religious background, also conclude that one should lead a more virtuous life and improve their karma. Likewise, some others would, again due to their religious background, proceed from feeling happy and to deciding that they should be grateful to their God. There are also people who would, due to to their religious background, think that they ought to feel fortunate and be thankful to God. > Reminding people that "At least we've got each other" is > probably one of the main uses of Thanksgiving in many > households where little else is going right. And then they would proceed to thank God for just that. (Again, I don't like the word "use".) >> While feeling fortunate and feeling omni-grateful both have at their >> origin the need for equanimity to face the vicissitude of life, they >> are still different in the matter of agency/intention. ----- ------ >>>>>> Also, not that it matters much, but I doubt that there are too >>>>>> many people who feel thankful to "the world". As someone else has [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Okay, then we disagree. I maintain that the *feeling* is precisely > the same. Agree to disagree. ----- ----- >>>> People don't feel the need to thank fate, even though they are happy >>>> that fate favors them. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that that particular agency used to satisfy the reflex is, in fact, > just as imaginary as the others. Yes. And the "thank god for everything" feeling is NOT borne of such a a moment of urgency. >> Note also the difference of expectation. One does not thank Lady >> Luck if one loses money at the card table, but one is extremely [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > at the card table, but one considers oneself extremely fortunate for > surving a hold-up in which the same money is taken away. (I was going to use the same example!) ----- ----- >>>>>>> Entirely secular people often want to acknowledge private emotions >>>>>>> publicly - [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I cannot recall ever having met a non-Christian native-born (or even > naturalized) American who doesn't identify with it. With due respect, how do you know that they identify with (or not) the tradition of a holiday? People will take advantage of the free time available to them and do things they like to do, whether they feel that it is "their holiday" or not. How do you know how they feel inside? It is not a conventional topic of conversation. I know many first generation (and some second generation) immigrants who, for the sake that their children would not feel alienated from their peers, cook a turkey on Thanksgiving. They eventually cease doing that as their children grow older as neither turkey nor roasting is part of their traditional cuisine. I also know people who deliberately not do what most Americans do on Thanksgiving -- they go to the theater, go to ski, etc, to take advantage of the fact that it is easier to get theater tickets for Thanksgiving and that the ski lanes are less congested on day. I would say that these actions are very plausible indications that the people do NOT identify with the Thanksgiving tradition. >> I think this largely depends on how much the individual wants to >> assimilate into whatever is perceived as the culture specific to the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, but they celebrate the holiday and probably reflect on what > they're thankful for, like the rest of us. They use the free time their own way. Some even choose to work on that day. See above. >> (This is what I meant by feeling that someone might feel that the >> tradition is "too foreign".) ---- ----- >>> or for >>> Americans in general (Christian or non-Christian) not thinking of it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > those in or out of the religion to consider it such, but it's your > definition. Does the classification of English as a Germanic language requires English or non-English speakers to be cognizant of the fact? Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >The institutionalization of an annual day of gratefulness >is thus Christian in nature. In other words, one who [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >grace on other days and say it only on Thanksgiving and >other special days?) Having now survived seventy-two Thanksgivings I have seen it mutate from a single holiday that didn't include Friday, and a time when it was treated somewhat more religiously than today. When I was young and television almost non-existent, the big Turkey Day football game was between the local high school team and its traditional rival. Everyone went off to the game while most of the women stayed home to prepare the feast, which would be consumed after everyone returned. Grace was usually said even in less-religious households where religion was msotly lip-service It was a fine familial tradition, ruined by the rise in the televising of college and professinal games on Thanksgiving. It is far more secularized these days, and far less religious than it was even then (at least in my circle of friends and acquaintances) although I assume there are rather religious people who take the "Thanks" more seriously. On the other hand, having started out as giving thanks for a bountiful harvest in a largely agrarian society I don't see that as being the focus today, so I'm not sure what the thanks are for. Certainly, many families had little to be thankful for this past Thanksgiving; perhaps thanks for being able to still afford to put on a Thanksgiving meal. Back when I was quite young (and walked five miles to school and back everyday through two feet of snow, uphill both ways) the Christmas shopping season started quasi-officially on the Friday after Thanksgiving, kidked off by the Thanksgiving day parades in many towns, such as New York's Macy's parade. it was genuinely a bit of a shock in the early 1950s when I first saw Christmas decorations hung in stores in the first half of November. >> ..., remembering various national myths, >> spending time with the family (and/or football), eating turkey, planning [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >holiday for a religious event as a priori favoring that >religion. As far as the interpretation of the US Constitution goes, it is not the favoring of a specific religion that is "banned", but the favoring of religion in general. But as I've mentioned before, governments below the federal level can try to celebrate religious aspects and may get away with it until someone actually complains. The American court system does not deal in advance with such matters but only deals with the case at hand. for instance, the courts rarely try to censor speech in advance, even if what is to be said is known in advance. There is a very large cross on the top of Mt Davidson in San Francisco (which played as an important location in the first Dirty Harry movie. The top of Mt Davidson is a public park and the cross had been built just before the hilltop became a city park in 1923. By the late twentieth century it was considered somewhat historic. Although the cross was certanly an intrusion of religion onto public land, it remained for some seventy years. But in 1991 it was formally challenged as a religious symbol in a public park, complaints were filed in the courts and the cross lost. (So the city basically sold the small piece of the park the cross was on to private interests.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Davidson,_San_Francisco,_California Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Back when I was quite young (and walked five miles to school and > back everyday through two feet of snow, uphill both ways) the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bit of a shock in the early 1950s when I first saw Christmas > decorations hung in stores in the first half of November. I was a bit startled when I realized that in the US (and in some parts of Canada) people routinely put up their Christmas trees at Thanksgiving and took them down right after Christmas Day. In my childhood world, it was routine to do so on Christmas Eve (you couldn't possibly do it during Advent!) and to leave it up until Epiphany. Now, of course, the stores, particularly the national chains, start the Christmas decorating and selling earlier and earlier - I think it starts before Hallowe'en now, but it's only a couple of years ago that a young local man married a woman from mainland Canada, and they discovered their first Christmas together that they had diametrically opposed views on the proper time to put up and to put away the decorations. SignatureCheryl > I was a bit startled when I realized that in the US (and in some parts > of Canada) people routinely put up their Christmas trees at Thanksgiving [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > their first Christmas together that they had diametrically opposed views > on the proper time to put up and to put away the decorations. Not knowing much about such things, but singing in churches as I do, I was surprised to see a crib still up in a church a couple of weeks ago when I went to sing evensnog. I was told that the tree and decorations come down on Twelfth Night (as they do in our house) but that crib stays up until epiphany. Makes sense, else why are the Kings there? AUE only SignatureDavid >Not knowing much about such things, but singing in churches as I do, I >was surprised to see a crib still up in a church a couple of weeks ago >when I went to sing evensnog. I was told that the tree and decorations >come down on Twelfth Night (as they do in our house) but that crib stays >up until epiphany. Makes sense, else why are the Kings there? A couple of weeks ago? In most paces Epiphany is 6 January, only a day after Twelfth Night. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >> Not knowing much about such things, but singing in churches as I do, I >> was surprised to see a crib still up in a church a couple of weeks ago [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A couple of weeks ago? In most paces Epiphany is 6 January, only a > day after Twelfth Night. 31st January - I just checked. I queried it with another bass whose wife is a vicar. He seemed to think it was normal. I've just checked - some churches cebrate Ephipany as a season which lasts from January 6th up to Ash Wednesday. SignatureDavid >>> Not knowing much about such things, but singing in churches as I do, I >>> was surprised to see a crib still up in a church a couple of weeks ago [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I've just checked - some churches cebrate Ephipany as a season which > lasts from January 6th up to Ash Wednesday. The season does last that long, although not everyone, not even all churches, leave up their cribs for the whole season. It's kind of like Christmas - the season really is twelve days long, in spite of all the people who take down their decorations on Boxing Day. But of course since they'd had them up during most if not all of the preceding season (Advent), they're tired of them by Boxing Day. SignatureCheryl the Omrud filted: >Not knowing much about such things, but singing in churches as I do, I >was surprised to see a crib still up in a church a couple of weeks ago >when I went to sing evensnog. Your recitals are obviously more entertaining than the ones I've attended....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >the Omrud filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Your recitals are obviously more entertaining than the ones I've attended....r I noticed that too. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> the Omrud filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I noticed that too. I know you're all too far away, except perhaps for Django Cat, but this is what I'll be doing on Sunday. Daughter thinks I'm insane, but I've been excited for weeks. http://tinyurl.com/yc3hv7a SignatureDavid >>> the Omrud filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/yc3hv7a I don't see anything there about snogging. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A handgun is like a Lawyer. You 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |don't want it lying around where Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the children might be exposed to |it, but when you need one, you need kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |it RIGHT NOW, and nothing else will (650)857-7572 |do. | Bill McNutt http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> the Omrud filted: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I don't see anything there about snogging. £15 for a ticket, unless you're a student. You can find out for yourself. SignatureDavid >>>>> the Omrud filted: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > £15 for a ticket, unless you're a student. You can find out for > yourself. Plus transportation, unfortunately. Let me know when you guys are singing in my neighborhood. ObAUE: "£14.00 concessions"? Here that would be read as "expensive popcorn". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The law of supply and demand tells us 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that when the price of something is Palo Alto, CA 94304 |artificially set below market level, |there will soon be none of that thing kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |left--as you may have noticed the (650)857-7572 |last time you tried to buy something |for nothing. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | P.J. O'Rourke >>>>>> the Omrud filted: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Plus transportation, unfortunately. Let me know when you guys are > singing in my neighborhood. I'll bear it in mind. > ObAUE: "£14.00 concessions"? Here that would be read as "expensive > popcorn". Normally "concessions" includes "students" - it's the ticket price for anybody who qualifies for a lower rate (unemployed, pensioner, etc). But this concert is taking place in a university-level music college which presumably has special arrangements to attract its own students (and the 30,000 students of the University of Manchester by which it is surrounded). SignatureDavid >>>>>> the Omrud filted: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >ObAUE: "£14.00 concessions"? Here that would be read as "expensive >popcorn". As David has indicated that is a different type of concession. "£14.00 concessions" is in the same category as "concessionary fare". Both are reduced charges applicable to certain categories of people, children, senior citizens, etc). A lower price is "conceded" to those categories. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> the Omrud filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/yc3hv7a I wish I were close enough to attend! SignatureCheryl >>> the Omrud filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/yc3hv7a Ah, my old Alma Mater. SignatureRay UK >>>> the Omrud filted: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Ah, my old Alma Mater. Hence your nom-de-Usenet? When were you there? I have a friend whom I've known since we started grammar school together at the age of 11, who did a double music degree at RNCM and Manchester from 74 - 78 or so. Got a double first as well. SignatureDavid >>>>> the Omrud filted: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > degree at RNCM and Manchester from 74 - 78 or so. Got a double first > as well. I left in 1974 SignatureRay UK >>>>>> the Omrud filted: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I left in 1974 Ah, you just missed him. I arrived at Manchester University in 1975 - my first year accommodation was Grosvenor Place, right across the road. What's your instrument? SignatureDavid >> the Omrud typed: >>> I know you're all too far away, except perhaps for Django Cat, but >>> this is what I'll be doing on Sunday. Daughter thinks I'm insane, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > degree at RNCM and Manchester from 74 - 78 or so. Got a double first > as well. I had to re-check the BrE meaning of /grammar school/ to make sure that you were not "special". SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> the Omrud typed: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I had to re-check the BrE meaning of /grammar school/ to make sure that > you were not "special". We were not "special", but were special. Only 20% were admitted to the grammar school. Mind, amongst the special, there were a few who were also "special". I often wonder about one in particular. He could now be either an eccentric professor or a tramp. SignatureDavid >>>> the Omrud typed: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > often wonder about one in particular. He could now be either an > eccentric professor or a tramp. Or both. There was one such at Southampton. He was one of the most brilliant economists of his generation, but he lived as a carrier bag man in later life. SignatureMike Page Google me at port.ac.uk if you need to send an email. >>>>> the Omrud typed: >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > brilliant economists of his generation, but he lived as a carrier bag > man in later life. During my time at Manchester there was an apparent tramp on the Oxford Road who asked everybody for 7p, that being the cost of a cup of tea in the refectory at the time. As he walked the university streets he spoke aloud, apparently delivering lectures. It was thought that he was a former lecturer and that he was probably schizophrenic. He was known as "Sevenpence". These days, people would just think he had Bluetooth. SignatureDavid > the Omrud filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Your recitals are obviously more entertaining than the ones I've attended....r 25 years singing in a cathedral exposed me to a number of choir-boy puerilities which I would find difficult to shake off. Not that I want to. SignatureDavid >> the Omrud filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > puerilities which I would find difficult to shake off. Not that I > want to. My School choir used to go and sing Evensong in various cathedrals including York(minster), Chester, St Asaph, St David's. When we went to Chester, it was known as "Chester song at twilight". SignatureRay UK >>> the Omrud filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > York(minster), Chester, St Asaph, St David's. When we went to Chester, it > was known as "Chester song at twilight". I sang in St Asaph in the autumn - some sort of occasion for dignitaries. There was more gold chain than you can shake a stick at. But a lot of it was in Welsh. SignatureDavid Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:19:50 GMT from the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com>: > I was told that the tree and decorations > come down on Twelfth Night (as they do in our house) but that crib stays > up until epiphany. Makes sense, else why are the Kings there? Que? Epiphany (6 January) *is* twelfth Night, isn't it? SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >Now, of course, the stores, particularly the national chains, start the >Christmas decorating and selling earlier and earlier - I think it starts >before Hallowe'en now, but it's only a couple of years ago that a young >local man married a woman from mainland Canada, and they discovered >their first Christmas together that they had diametrically opposed views >on the proper time to put up and to put away the decorations. That's got to be an even worse conflict than whether the toilet paper should go over or under. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >As far as the interpretation of the US Constitution goes, it is >not the favoring of a specific religion that is "banned", but the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >lost. (So the city basically sold the small piece of the park the >cross was on to private interests.) The next project should be to challenge the use of religious place names such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Bernadino and various other places with San, Santa, Saint and St. in their names. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > The next project should be to challenge the use of religious place names > such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Bernadino and various other > places with San, Santa, Saint and St. in their names. Our local schools were switched from religious to secular control, and I wondered if some people didn't realize that we don't have a policy on separation of church and state and, in fact, that the schools continue to offer religious studies courses. Fairly promptly after the change, someone protested either the name of one of the schools or the religious symbols contained in it, and I wondered at the time if she'd be protesting the saintly name of the city itself next. In practise, some schools have changed their names (usually to that of some nearby street or river) and some have maintained their religious names. I assumed that the which naming practice was used was determined by some kind of local school council or something, but was never interested enough to try to find out. SignatureCheryl On Feb 25, 12:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: [hilltop cross in San Francisco] > >But in 1991 it was formally challenged as a religious symbol in a > >public park, complaints were filed in the courts and the cross [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Bernadino and various other > places with San, Santa, Saint and St. in their names. Two residents of Las Cruces, New Mexico, challenged their city's logo, which is three crosses. They lost. -- Jerry Friedman Xxxxx Fe, New Mexico >> Hatunen: > [hilltop cross in San Francisco] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Two residents of Las Cruces, New Mexico, challenged their city's logo, > which is three crosses. They lost. There is a movement afoot around here to change the name of Mount Diablo. The devil should not be honored with a mountain named after it, the proponents of renaming it say. Fortunately, there is not much chance that the name change will happen, though. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> Hatunen: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Fortunately, there is not much chance that the name change will happen, > though. And what about these: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database/devilledkidneysontoa_85068.shtml> <http://tinyurl.com/yl88rx9> SignatureLes (BrE) >>> Hatunen: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Fortunately, there is not much chance that the name change will happen, > though. And what about these: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database/devilledkidneysontoa_85068.shtml> <http://tinyurl.com/yl88rx9> SignatureLes (BrE) >>> Hatunen: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Fortunately, there is not much chance that the name change will happen, > though. They could rename it "Killdevil Mountain". I went to a church-run summer camp named after that mountain, but I think the mountain's name long pre-dated the existence of the camp. SignatureCheryl >>>> Hatunen: >>> [hilltop cross in San Francisco] >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > summer camp named after that mountain, but I think the mountain's > name long pre-dated the existence of the camp. Well, I wouldn't want to annoy the devil -- just in case ... SignatureSkitt (AmE) > There is a movement afoot around here to change the name of Mount Diablo. > The devil should not be honored with a mountain named after it, the > proponents of renaming it say. > > Fortunately, there is not much chance that the name change will happen, > though. IANMTU: "Welcome to The Devil's Arse!" http://www.peakcavern.co.uk/ Marginally related: the residents of Butt Hole Road in Conisbrough (S. Yorks.) successfully got the street name changed to Archer Way last year because they were fed up with "pranksters baring their backsides for cheeky photographs", etc. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/archer_way/ SignatureI heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt] On Feb 25, 1:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > >As far as the interpretation of the US Constitution goes, it is > >not the favoring of a specific religion that is "banned", but the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Bernadino and various other > places with San, Santa, Saint and St. in their names. Nuclear submarines are named for cities. When they changed the "Corpus Christi" to the "City of Corpus Christi," the local Catholic authorities were mollified. > On Feb 25, 1:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"<m...@peterduncanson.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nuclear submarines are named for cities. *American* nuclear submarines are named after cities. SignatureDavid >> On Feb 25, 1:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"<m...@peterduncanson.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > *American* nuclear submarines are named after cities. And only one class of them (_Los Angeles_-class). And one of them (USS Hyman G. Rickover) isn't. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |You cannot solve problems with the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |same type of thinking that created Palo Alto, CA 94304 |them. | Albert Einstein kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> On Feb 25, 1:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"<m...@peterduncanson.net> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And only one class of them (_Los Angeles_-class). And one of them > (USS Hyman G. Rickover) isn't. What does either of your's nitpicking have to do with the point? Were you really unable to supply the quantifier "some" in front of my statement, if you felt it was incomprehensible or inaccurate as it stood? > > >> On Feb 25, 1:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"<m...@peterduncanson.net> > > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > statement, if you felt it was incomprehensible or inaccurate as it > stood? Coming in late and possibly missing the point, I nevertheless offer the following: First, the US Navy (by whom I am employed)[1], is no longer consistent in either the naming or numbering of its ships. For many years submarines were numbered in continuous sequence, but about 20 years ago the developers of what became the SEAWOLF decided that it would be the American sub of the 21st century and arranged to have it numbered SSN-21. Only three ships of the class were built (I didn't say "have been"; there won't be any more). SSN-22 is USS CONNECTICUT. SSN-23 is USS JIMMY CARTER. Some pattern! The new "mass-production" class (we've stepped up to two per year) is named for states and reverts to the continuous numnbering. USS VIRGINIA, SSN-774, is the lead ship. In the course of construction of the LOS ANGELES class, the Navy thought to name a sub after Corpus Christi, a small Texas city where there has been a naval presence for many years. Objections arose from all over at the thought of naming a warship for the body of (as many call him) Christ. The city fathers asked if the Navy might instead name the ship CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI." The Navy agreed, and that's the name of the ship. Thus do we make halting progress. [1] I almost said I "work for" the Navy, but Chick Riggs, for one, knows better. SignatureBob Lieblich >> > >> On Feb 25, 1:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"<m...@peterduncanson.net> >> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > [1] I almost said I "work for" the Navy, but Chick Riggs, for one, > knows better. You want progress? HMS Victory remains a commissioned ship of the Royal Navy and the Flag Ship of the Second Sea Lord & Commander in Chief Naval Home Command. Due to service commitments, there are occasions when Victory will be closed to the public for all or part of the day. HMS Victory stands today as the world's oldest commissioned warship. Still manned by Officers and Ratings of the Royal Navy, the Victory has seen over 225 years of almost continuous naval service. http://www.hnsa.org/ships/img/victory1.jpg >>> > >> On Feb 25, 1:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"<m...@peterduncanson.net> >>> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >225 years of almost continuous naval service. > http://www.hnsa.org/ships/img/victory1.jpg The USS Constitution, AKA "Old Ironsides" was launched in 1797, making her 213 years old, and called "the oldest commissioned ship in America", but it seems a bit hard to determine whether she has remained continuously commissioned for that whole time (she has been destined for scrapping on several occasions). As Wikepedia notes, "She [HMS Victory] is the oldest commissioned warship in the world, although the USS Constitution, launched 30 years later, is the oldest commissioned warship still afloat." Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > but it seems a bit hard to determine whether > she has remained continuously commissioned for that whole time > (she has been destined for scrapping on several occasions). When we did the tour of Old Ironsides I actually asked this question and was told that the USS Constitution had never been decommissioned, although it had been attempted several times. Not that I am holding up some docent as final arbiter. At the time the ship was on its sixty-*mumbleth* commanding officer, if I recall correctly. SignatureThere's a race of men that don't fit in, A race that can't stay still So they break the hearts of kith and kin, And they roam the world at will. [Snip] > [1] I almost said I "work for" the Navy, but Chick Riggs, for one, > knows better. Any relation to Chick Ruggs? SignatureRay UK >[Snip] > >> [1] I almost said I "work for" the Navy, but Chick Riggs, for one, >> knows better. The distinction between "in the Navy" and "worked for the Navy" is one I never tire of explaining, for what else can I do? >Any relation to Chick Ruggs? Call me anything you like, just don't call me late for lunch, as Big George, my canoeing partner, used to say. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> Robert Lieblich typed: >> [Snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The distinction between "in the Navy" and "worked for the Navy" is one > I never tire of explaining, for what else can I do? As far as that goes, one can be in the Navy, work for the Navy, or work for a defense contractor on Navy projects. I did the latter. I still had to deal with Navy inspectors, though. <sigh> Then again, there can be the notion of having an employer but not necessarily doing what some might call "work" for it, right, Bob? [snip] SignatureSkitt (AmE) worked at least now and then during his employment >>> Robert Lieblich typed: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >a defense contractor on Navy projects. I did the latter. I still had to >deal with Navy inspectors, though. <sigh> Ever come across an INSURV inspector? I was on the Navy's INSURV Board for satellite communications, in my early days. The assignment was great fun, for it got me away from the desk for some time in the real world. It allowed me to go on short visits to ships, when an appropriate one was in port or on sea trials where I sometimes joined them, seeing to it that the gear worked properly and that the assigned man knew how to work it. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> Robert Lieblich typed: >>>> [Snip] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ever come across an INSURV inspector? Nope. > I was on the Navy's INSURV Board > for satellite communications, in my early days. The assignment was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > them, seeing to it that the gear worked properly and that the assigned > man knew how to work it. Strangely enough, even though I was closely associated with their weaponry, I never set foot on one of our (US) nuclear subs. I did get to check out one of the British nuclear subs, though. When I was a small child (around 1940), I had an opportunity to board one of the two subs Latvia once had. I even looked through its periscope! SignatureSkitt (AmE) <snip> >> I was on the Navy's INSURV Board >> for satellite communications, in my early days. The assignment was [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >When I was a small child (around 1940), I had an opportunity to board one of >the two subs Latvia once had. I even looked through its periscope! I never got to do that. Getting the drudge work instead, I helped test new and modified equipment installed on our nuclear submarines, but, sad to say, I never was offered the chance to go on sea trials in one. Space for additional personnel is very limited. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE <snip> >SSN-23 is USS JIMMY CARTER. Does she often get lost at sea, due to indecision on the bridge? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > Coming in late and possibly missing the point, I nevertheless offer > the following: First, the US Navy (by whom I am employed)[1], is no [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reverts to the continuous numnbering. USS VIRGINIA, SSN-774, is the > lead ship. Except that according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_class_submarine the most recent one under construction is the "John Warner" (SSN-785). And no, it's not because they exhausted all the states. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |First Law of Anthropology: 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | If they're doing something you Palo Alto, CA 94304 | don't understand, it's either an | isolated lunatic, a religious kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | ritual, or art. (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Coming in late and possibly missing the point, I nevertheless offer >> the following: First, the US Navy (by whom I am employed)[1], is no [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >the most recent one under construction is the "John Warner" >(SSN-785). And no, it's not because they exhausted all the states. FWIW, John Warner was Secretary of the Navy, about the time I went to work for the organization. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> Coming in late and possibly missing the point, I nevertheless offer >>> the following: First, the US Navy (by whom I am employed)[1], is no [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >FWIW, John Warner was Secretary of the Navy, about the time I went to >work for the organization. There was no need for that comma after "Navy". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE [sub titles] >>> Except that according to >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > There was no need for that comma after "Navy". . I think you were right. The point you were making was that he got the sub because of his job, no? The timing was additional information not vital to the point, and was properly set off. >[sub titles] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I think you were right. The point you were making was that he got the >sub because of his job, no? Not really. >The timing was additional information not >vital to the point, and was properly set off. My only point, not a particularly vital one, was that Mr Warner was the Secretary when I went to work for the Navy. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> [sub titles] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > My only point, not a particularly vital one, was that Mr Warner was > the Secretary when I went to work for the Navy. . In that case, I would like to withdraw my dissenting vote. >>I think you were right. The point you were making was that he got the >>sub because of his job, no? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >My only point, not a particularly vital one, was that Mr Warner was >the Secretary when I went to work for the Navy. I'm surprised no one has pointed out that he is well-known also as the onetime and brief husband of Elizabeth Taylor. So I will. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >Except that according to > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_class_submarine > >the most recent one under construction is the "John Warner" >(SSN-785). And no, it's not because they exhausted all the states. "Jack Warner" would have been a much nicer choice - see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixon_of_Dock_Green>. Signature(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ???@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Food expiry ambiguities: <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/date2k-3.htm#Food> >>Except that according to >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >"Jack Warner" would have been a much nicer choice - see ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixon_of_Dock_Green>. Why would they name a subnarine after the former head of a Hollywood movie studio? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>Except that according to >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Why would they name a subnarine after the former head of a >Hollywood movie studio? Not the same Jack Warner. Use the link. Signature(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (RFCs 5536/7) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (RFCs 5536/7) >>>>Except that according to >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Not the same Jack Warner. Use the link. My comment makes just as much sense as linking your Jack Warner with the submarine John Warner. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> On Feb 25, 1:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"<m...@peterduncanson.net> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > What does either of your's nitpicking have to do with the point? Nothing whatsoever. > Were > you really unable to supply the quantifier "some" in front of my > statement, if you felt it was incomprehensible or inaccurate as it > stood? It's a long-standing irritation of non-Americans on Usenet that some Americans on Usenet seem to think that Usenet is populated by Americans. SignatureDavid >>>>> On Feb 25, 1:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"<m...@peterduncanson.net> >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > It's a long-standing irritation of non-Americans on Usenet that some > Americans on Usenet seem to think that Usenet is populated by Americans. Not just Americans, but bible-belt bigot Americans that post nothing about a perpetual calendar to sci.astro. <snip> >It's a long-standing irritation of non-Americans on Usenet that some >Americans on Usenet seem to think that Usenet is populated by Americans. To whichever group of non-Americans you are referring, it sounds to me as if they have a complex, of an unspecified nature. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE In sci.astro message <FHhin.45627$Ym4.6295@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:14:45, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com> posted: >It's a long-standing irritation of non-Americans on Usenet that some >Americans on Usenet seem to think that Usenet is populated by >Americans. You give rather little obvious indication of not being one yourself, though I see that you speak en-GB. Signature(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links; Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. >> >> On Feb 25, 1:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"<m...@peterduncanson.net> >> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >statement, if you felt it was incomprehensible or inaccurate as it >stood? Translation: Don't bother me with facts, damnit. On Feb 28, 3:21 am, Amethyst Deceiver <n...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 25, 1:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"<m...@peterduncanson.net> > >> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Translation: Don't bother me with facts, damnit.- Are you claiming that _anything_ I wrote in that posting is not a fact? If so, what? > On Feb 28, 3:21 am, Amethyst Deceiver <n...@lindsayendell.org.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > If so, what? Instead of supplying the quantifier "some" in front of your statement, I fear that many of your readers supplied the quantifier "all". SignatureJames >> On Feb 28, 3:21 am, Amethyst Deceiver <n...@lindsayendell.org.uk> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Instead of supplying the quantifier "some" in front of your statement, I > fear that many of your readers supplied the quantifier "all". And would have been justified in doing so. If a statement is made such as 'swans are white', then it is to be interpreted as a universal statement unless the qualification is explicit. SignatureMike Page Google me at port.ac.uk if you need to send an email. > >> On Feb 28, 3:21 am, Amethyst Deceiver <n...@lindsayendell.org.uk> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > as 'swans are white', then it is to be interpreted as a universal > statement unless the qualification is explicit. Sez who? And why would such a principle operate with respect to "Submarines are named for cities," when everyone knows of lots of submarines that are named for things that are not cities? Consider. Which is a more natural thing to say with no immediate context: (1) Cats purr. (2) Cats scratch. I say that (2) is a more natural statement (for initiating a discourse), because everyone knows that some cats scratch and some don't, and one wants to talk about the former kind of cat; and that (1) is an odd thing to say, because everyone knows that _all_ cats purr, so there's no point in saying it. Hence, when initiating a discussion of the use of religious terminology in distasteful secular contexts, it is reasonable to say "Submarines are name for cities" and not "Some submarines are named for cities." If human language followed rules of Aristotelian logic, there would be no need for Aristotelian logic. On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:58:35 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:419d64d8-390c-4350-a639-adc573b93871@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> in sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] >>> Instead of supplying the quantifier "some" in front of >>> your statement, I fear that many of your readers >>> supplied the quantifier "all". >> And would have been justified in doing so. If a statement >> is made such as 'swans are white', then it is to be >> interpreted as a universal statement unless the >> qualification is explicit. > Sez who? Most people, in my experience. Probably including you, most of the time. [...] > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:58:35 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Most people, in my experience. Probably including you, most > of the time. Most of the time, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference (if it did make a difference, the speaker would use the quantifier), because everyone understands the intention -- but the nitpickers here decided to take advantage of a potential ambiguity and proclaim _one_ interpretation (the less likely) as the _only_ interpretation. On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:07:33 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:83790f62-2023-4a84-9516-3c1e51cce0fe@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> in sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:58:35 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:419d64d8-390c-4350-a639-adc573b93871@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> >> in sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> [...] >>>>> Instead of supplying the quantifier "some" in front of >>>>> your statement, I fear that many of your readers >>>>> supplied the quantifier "all". >>>> And would have been justified in doing so. If a statement >>>> is made such as 'swans are white', then it is to be >>>> interpreted as a universal statement unless the >>>> qualification is explicit. >>> Sez who? >> Most people, in my experience. Probably including you, most >> of the time. > Most of the time, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference > (if it did make a difference, the speaker would use the > quantifier), [...] Now you're just being silly. On both counts. Brian > because everyone knows that some cats scratch and some > don't some cats don't scratch? SignatureThis is our music from the bachelor's den, the sound of loneliness turned up to ten. A harsh soundtrack from a stagnant waterbed and it sounds just like this. This is the sound of someone losing the plot making out that they're OK when they're not. You're gonna like it, but not a lot. And the chorus goes like this... >> because everyone knows that some cats scratch and some >> don't > > some cats don't scratch? Everyone knows... For all X: X is a Neanderthal; X knows there exists a Y: Y is a cat; Y does not scratch. > Consider. Which is a more natural thing to say with no immediate > context: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (1) is an odd thing to say, because everyone knows that _all_ cats > purr, so there's no point in saying it. The first time that I got it I was just ten years old I got it from some kitty next door I went and see the doctor And he gave me the cure I think I got it some more Marvin J. Mooney filted: >> Consider. Which is a more natural thing to say with no immediate >> context: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >And he gave me the cure >I think I got it some more What the heck, it's the weekend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grrp6mxrY5Y ....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > > On Feb 28, 3:21 am, Amethyst Deceiver <n...@lindsayendell.org.uk> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Instead of supplying the quantifier "some" in front of your statement, I > fear that many of your readers supplied the quantifier "all". That's what I said. (In a later posting using [gasp] technical terminology.) >On Feb 28, 3:21 am, Amethyst Deceiver <n...@lindsayendell.org.uk> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >If so, what? It's interesting, Peter. Semantics obviously isn't your forte. Neither is plain communication. I'm not sure what is. >> On Feb 28, 3:21 am, Amethyst Deceiver <n...@lindsayendell.org.uk> >> wrote: >>>> On Feb 27, 12:14 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> >>>> wrote: [...] >>>>>>> Nuclear submarines are named for cities. >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > It's interesting, Peter. Semantics obviously isn't your forte. Neither > is plain communication. I'm not sure what is. He's sound on writing systems --one of the few areas in which modern linguisticians have made progress of interest to real humans. SignatureMike. >> >> On Feb 25, 1:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"<m...@peterduncanson.net> >> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >statement, if you felt it was incomprehensible or inaccurate as it >stood? That seesm rather ironic coming from you after your complaints about my failure to use "everyone else" in place of "everyone" in another post. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> On Feb 25, 1:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"<m...@peterduncanson.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >*American* nuclear submarines are named after cities. And almost all of them, unless you can find a city named "Hyman Rickover". Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> On Feb 25, 1:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"<m...@peterduncanson.net> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And almost all of them, unless you can find a city named "Hyman > Rickover". For values of "almost all" that include 61 out of 202 (if I counted correctly). (And, I guess, if none of the subs in other classes are named after cities.) I make it a bit less than two thirds of the active boats. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |On a scale of one to ten... 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it sucked. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > The next project should be to challenge the use of religious place > names such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Bernadino and various > other places with San, Santa, Saint and St. in their names. Which part of "Los Angeles" is the saint bit? >> The next project should be to challenge the use of religious place >> names such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Bernadino and various >> other places with San, Santa, Saint and St. in their names. >> > Which part of "Los Angeles" is the saint bit? The saint in question is Saint Mary the Virgin, under her title as Nuestra Senora La Reina de Los Angeles de Porciuncula. The inhabitants prefer to shorten the name a bit. SignatureCheryl Cheryl filted: >>> The next project should be to challenge the use of religious place >>> names such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Bernadino and various [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >The inhabitants prefer to shorten the name a bit. To just the last two letters....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >>> The next project should be to challenge the use of religious place >>> names such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Bernadino and various [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >The inhabitants prefer to shorten the name a bit. No need to go into all that: there is the simple fact that angels are a religious entity. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * [Deleted <sci.lang>] > ... there is the simple fact that angels are a religious entity. In empyrean, do angels wear celestial socks? Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ >>> The next project should be to challenge the use of religious place >>> names such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Bernadino and various [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The inhabitants prefer to shorten the name a bit. And Mama's little baby loves that. SignatureRob Bannister [...] > There is a very large cross on the top of Mt Davidson in San > Francisco (which played as an important location in the first [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > lost. (So the city basically sold the small piece of the park the > cross was on to private interests.) Interesting. In the Austrian Alps there is a cross on top of almost anything you can trip over. In 2008, the one erected in 1870 on top of the Grosser Priel (2515 m) got bent during a storm so it had to be replaced. Here's a report about the new cross, which weighs 1800 kg and was flown up to the top of the mountain by helicopter. The compressor was needed for building the foundation and anchoring points (sorry it's a PDF): <http://www.submission.de/redaktionelles/pdf/2009_196_S.24-25.pdf> and here's the original cross: <http://www.hinterstoder.at/detail/dorfundleben/2654235-290597/ PrielkreuzAbschiednach138Jahren.html> <http://tinyurl.com/ycqt88p> The idea of an Almighty who would appreciate his works being despoiled in this way seems rather bizarre to me. SignatureLes (BrE) If I had a hacksaw... Hatunen wrote: [...] > There is a very large cross on the top of Mt Davidson in San > Francisco (which played as an important location in the first [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > lost. (So the city basically sold the small piece of the park the > cross was on to private interests.) Interesting. In the Austrian Alps there is a cross on top of almost anything you can trip over. In 2008, the one erected in 1870 on top of the Grosser Priel (2515 m) got bent during a storm so it had to be replaced. Here's a report about the new cross, which weighs 1800 kg and was flown up to the top of the mountain by helicopter. The compressor was needed for building the foundation and anchoring points (sorry it's a PDF): <http://www.submission.de/redaktionelles/pdf/2009_196_S.24-25.pdf> and here's the original cross: <http://www.hinterstoder.at/detail/dorfundleben/2654235-290597/ PrielkreuzAbschiednach138Jahren.html> <http://tinyurl.com/ycqt88p> The idea of an Almighty who would appreciate his works being despoiled in this way seems rather bizarre to me. SignatureLes (BrE) If I had a hacksaw... ... > Everyone went off to the game while > most of the women stayed home to prepare the feast, which would > be consumed after everyone returned. ... Psst... Dave... not in front of the girls. -- Jerry Friedman > Everyone went off to the game while > most of the women stayed home to prepare the feast, which would > be consumed after everyone returned. Don't tell me Hatunen doesn't harbor, and express, (unconscious) prejudice. "Women" aren't people? That sort of language went out of fashion at least 40 years ago, when he was a young adult. >> Everyone went off to the game while >> most of the women stayed home to prepare the feast, which would >> be consumed after everyone returned. > > Don't tell me Hatunen doesn't harbor, and express, (unconscious) > prejudice. Who says he doesn't? (Who thinks that they themselves don't?) What we said was that what you pointed to wasn't an example of it. > "Women" aren't people? Or, perhaps, he had a more restrictive "everyone" in mind when he wrote the sentence, likely the group that he considered himself part of. Yeah, there is a bias revealed, but I read it as more "(Adult) women weren't part of my group" than "Women aren't people". > That sort of language went out of fashion at least 40 years ago, when > he was a young adult. I don't think that you'd have to go very far to find young people talking about "everyone" in a way that didn't include adults. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing. | Dean Thompson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Everyone went off to the game while >> most of the women stayed home to prepare the feast, which would >> be consumed after everyone returned. > > Don't tell me Hatunen doesn't harbor, and express, (unconscious) > prejudice. Oh, the irony! > "Women" aren't people? > > That sort of language went out of fashion at least 40 years ago, when > he was a young adult. Don't be ridiculous: there's an implied "else" there. "Everybody [else] went to watch the game but Fred stayed behind." SignatureI worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my daughter] will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?' [Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/ ] > >> Everyone went off to the game while > >> most of the women stayed home to prepare the feast, which would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oh, the irony! That's the second time in two days. Against what groups do I display prejudice? >> >> Everyone went off to the game while >> >> most of the women stayed home to prepare the feast, which would [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That's the second time in two days. Against what groups do I display > prejudice? Jews, autistic people, schizophrenic people, blondes, and Kibologists. SignatureI worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my daughter] will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?' [Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/ ] >>> >> Everyone went off to the game while >>> >> most of the women stayed home to prepare the feast, which would [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jews, autistic people, schizophrenic people, blondes, and Kibologists. What exactly is a Kibologist anyway...? I tried asking once but they never really aswered the question. --oTTo-- >What exactly is a Kibologist anyway...? $20, same as in town. Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request >>> Everyone went off to the game while >>> most of the women stayed home to prepare the feast, which would [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Don't be ridiculous: there's an implied "else" there. "Everybody >[else] went to watch the game but Fred stayed behind." Oh. Good grief. Is that what the fuss is about? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:23:54 +0000, Adam Funk > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Oh. Good grief. Is that what the fuss is about? You think sex bias is something to scoff at? On top of scoffing at bias against American Indians? >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:23:54 +0000, Adam Funk >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >On top of scoffing at bias against American Indians? I gladly edit my comment to include explicitly "everone else". Some of whom may have actually been of the female persuasion. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:08:59 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > I gladly edit my comment to include explicitly "everone else". > Some of whom may have actually been of the female persuasion. The point is that it didn't occur to you to write it accurately in the first place. >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:08:59 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >The point is that it didn't occur to you to write it accurately in the >first place. It's definiely a point if you make it one. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> Everyone went off to the game while >> most of the women stayed home to prepare the feast, which would [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >That sort of language went out of fashion at least 40 years ago, when >he was a young adult. Well, I'm writing about the situation in the 1940s through the mid-1950s. If I told a story of the custom in the days of slavery would you assume I favored slavery? It doesn't take prejudice to note the more or less historical fact that women usually did the cooking (and still do). Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:57:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > It doesn't take prejudice to note the more or less historical > fact that women usually did the cooking (and still do). No, I would expect you to write "the men went off to the game while most of the women ...," or, to give it some period flavor, "the menfolk" and "the womenfolk." >> The institutionalization of an annual day of gratefulness >> is thus Christian in nature. In other words, one who [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > in less-religious households where religion was msotly > lip-service [...] I take this to mean that for certain households, grace was said on Thanksgiving even though it was not said on other days? > It is far more secularized these days, and far less religious > than it was even then (at least in my circle of friends and > acquaintances) although I assume there are rather religious > people who take the "Thanks" more seriously. So what is the grace situation these days? ----- ----- >> For the record, I do not see the government setting up a >> holiday for a religious event as a priori favoring that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not the favoring of a specific religion that is "banned", but the > favoring of religion in general. I am aware of the difference; and my point was about the the former, not the latter. In general, I don't see how the position of "not favoring religion" is attainable when the government has to accommodate the people when they assert their right to practise their religion. Unlike France, the US does not have a tradition of "laicite" to support such a position. The French government can ban Hajib in schools; never in the US. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr [Thanksgiving] > > It is far more secularized these days, and far less religious > > than it was even then (at least in my circle of friends and > > acquaintances) although I assume there are rather religious > > people who take the "Thanks" more seriously. > > So what is the grace situation these days? ... Different for different people. In some families, before the meal, each person takes a turn saying something they're thankful for. But fundamentalism has increased greatly during my life (a good deal less than Dave's), and I imagine that has affected the overall grace picture a lot. -- Jerry Friedman -- Jerry Friedman >[Thanksgiving] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Different for different people. We say grace (the traditional Catholic one) before holiday family meals like Thanksgiving and Christmas when all of us are gathered, but not before everyday meals. None of the clasping of hands around the table stuff or adding comments to the single line of "Bless us, O Lord, and these Thy gifts which we are about to receive from Thy bounty, through Christ our Lord. Amen." My son taught his two boys a (highly) modified version of the Selkirk Grace, so they follow the Catholic Grace with: We hae bread, and we hae meat. So thank the Lord that we can eat. Amen. It works well. The boys (now 5 and 6) settle down and get quiet at the beginning of the meal awaiting the Catholic Grace so they can do their act. Nikolai broke us up Christmas by holding up a dinner roll and asking if it was "hay bread". We have a number of friends, mostly Baptists, who say grace before all meals. When we dine at their houses, my wife and I simply bow our heads and listen. When they dine at our house, we invite one of them to say grace because we know they would like to. None of our friends say grace - out loud - when we dine in a restaurant, but they may do so to themselves. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:36:06 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Lord, and these Thy gifts which we are about to receive from Thy > bounty, through Christ our Lord. Amen." What's "traditional Catholic" about that? Sounds pretty standard -- that is, catholic -- to me. > My son taught his two boys a (highly) modified version of the Selkirk > Grace, so they follow the Catholic Grace with: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > say grace - out loud - when we dine in a restaurant, but they may do > so to themselves. On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:13:44 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:c8ac3cd8-739c-4c5f-b5ed-862a69574954@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> in sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > On Feb 26, 11:52 pm, tony cooper > <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: [...] >> We say grace (the traditional Catholic one) before >> holiday family meals like Thanksgiving and Christmas [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> receive from Thy bounty, through Christ our Lord. Amen." >> > What's "traditional Catholic" about that? Sounds pretty > standard -- that is, catholic -- to me. The two are clearly not mutually exclusive! But over the years I've more often been subjected to one of the following standard versions (from which I omit the concluding 'Amen'), mostly in Protestant households: God is great, God is good; let us thank Him for our food. Come, Lord Jesus, be our guest, and let these gifts to us be blessed. Or, when we lived in Richmond, Ind., the Quaker moment of silence. And of course from British schoolboy literature one is familiar with 'For what we are about to receive, may the Lord make us truly thankful'. [...] Brian > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:13:44 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > The two are clearly not mutually exclusive! It's Grice again. Maxim of Quantity. What _reason_ did he have for labeling something that's _not_ specifically Catholic as Catholic? > But over the years I've more often been subjected to one of > the following standard versions (from which I omit the > concluding 'Amen'), mostly in Protestant households: > > God is great, God is good; let us thank Him for our food. "And we thank Him" is the version that was frowned upon in Episcopal school in the 1950s/60s as being too flip. > Come, Lord Jesus, be our guest, and let these gifts to us > be blessed. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > familiar with 'For what we are about to receive, may the > Lord make us truly thankful'. No, one isn't. If you meant "I am familiar," why didn't you say so? And that's a very peculiar way to put it -- the utterer isn't thankful on his own for what he is about to receive, but needs to be prodded into thankfulness by the Deity? [sci.astro dropped] On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:21:06 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:5471ac79-85c6-4211-94c6-2fa1f22521ca@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com> in sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > On Feb 27, 12:56 am, "Brian M. Scott" > <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote: [...] >> And of course from British schoolboy literature one is >> familiar with 'For what we are about to receive, may the >> Lord make us truly thankful'. > No, one isn't. If you meant "I am familiar," why didn't > you say so? Because 'one is familiar' is ever so much more appropriate to the literature in question, of course! Not that this grace is limited to literature: it's in many people's school memories. Or to schools: I've heard it in people's homes, and it's the second one on the list of mealtime prayers suggested at <http://www.stbarnabas.us/prayer/mtprayer.htm> by the church of St. Barnabas the Apostle in Fort Worth. By the way, a post-meal variant appears in Chapter 8 of _The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby_, spoken by Mr Squeers : 'For what we have received, may the Lord make us truly thankful!' [...] Brian Brian wrote on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:38:12 -0500: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:21:06 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in > <news:5471ac79-85c6-4211-94c6-2fa1f22521ca@t23g2000yqt.googleg > roups.com> in sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Feb 27, 12:56 am, "Brian M. Scott" >> <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote: > [...] >>> And of course from British schoolboy literature one is >>> familiar with 'For what we are about to receive, may the >>> Lord make us truly thankful'. >> No, one isn't. If you meant "I am familiar," why didn't >> you say so? > Because 'one is familiar' is ever so much more appropriate > to the literature in question, of course! Not that this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > <http://www.stbarnabas.us/prayer/mtprayer.htm> by the church > of St. Barnabas the Apostle in Fort Worth. > By the way, a post-meal variant appears in Chapter 8 of _The > Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby_, spoken by Mr > Squeers : 'For what we have received, may the Lord make us > truly thankful!' At the battle of Fontenoy (1745), the English officers saluted and Captain Charles Hay shouted : "Messieurs des Gardes françaises, tirez !" ("Gentlemen of the French guard, shoot !"). Lieutenant Count d'Anterroche answered : "Messieurs, nous ne tirons jamais les premiers, tirez vous-mêmes !" ("Gentlemen, we never shoot first, you shoot !"). However, it was finally agreed that French would shoot first and Hay is supposed to have said "For what we are about to receive, may the Lord make us truly thankful". SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not On Feb 27, 1:00 pm, "James Silverton" <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net> wrote: > Brian wrote on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:38:12 -0500: > > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:21:06 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> On Feb 27, 12:56 am, "Brian M. Scott" > >> <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote: > >>> And of course from British schoolboy literature one is > >>> familiar with 'For what we are about to receive, may the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > supposed to have said "For what we are about to receive, may the Lord > make us truly thankful". Suggesting that the irony of the formulation was fully appreciated in the middle of the 18th century. On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:37:02 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:b4c31252-01d4-4c6f-b21f-d00932e9430a@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > On Feb 27, 1:00 pm, "James Silverton" <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net> > wrote: >> Brian wrote on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:38:12 -0500: >>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:21:06 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >>> <news:5471ac79-85c6-4211-94c6-2fa1f22521ca@t23g2000yqt.googleg >>> roups.com> in sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>> On Feb 27, 12:56 am, "Brian M. Scott" >>>> <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote: >>>>> And of course from British schoolboy literature one is >>>>> familiar with 'For what we are about to receive, may the >>>>> Lord make us truly thankful'. >>>> No, one isn't. If you meant "I am familiar," why didn't >>>> you say so? >>> Because 'one is familiar' is ever so much more appropriate >>> to the literature in question, of course! Not that this [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> Squeers : 'For what we have received, may the Lord make us >>> truly thankful!' >> At the battle of Fontenoy (1745), the English officers saluted and >> Captain Charles Hay shouted : "Messieurs des Gardes fran aises, tirez !" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> supposed to have said "For what we are about to receive, may the Lord >> make us truly thankful". > Suggesting that the irony of the formulation was fully appreciated in > the middle of the 18th century. Suggesting, rather, that when the anecdote was created, the formulation was so familiar that one might play with it. Brian Brian wrote on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:57:30 -0500: >> On Feb 27, 1:00 pm, "James Silverton" >> <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> Brian wrote on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:38:12 -0500: >>>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:21:06 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >>>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >>>> <news:5471ac79-85c6-4211-94c6-2fa1f22521ca@t23g2000yqt.goog >>>> leg roups.com> in sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>>> On Feb 27, 12:56 am, "Brian M. Scott" >>>>> <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote: >>>>>> And of course from British schoolboy literature one is >>>>>> familiar with 'For what we are about to receive, may the >>>>>> Lord make us truly thankful'. >>>>> No, one isn't. If you meant "I am familiar," why didn't >>>>> you say so? >>>> Because 'one is familiar' is ever so much more appropriate >>>> to the literature in question, of course! Not that this [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>> : 'For what we have received, may the Lord make us truly >>>> thankful!' >>> At the battle of Fontenoy (1745), the English officers >>> saluted and Captain Charles Hay shouted : "Messieurs des [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> first and Hay is supposed to have said "For what we are >>> about to receive, may the Lord make us truly thankful". >> Suggesting that the irony of the formulation was fully >> appreciated in the middle of the 18th century. > Suggesting, rather, that when the anecdote was created, the > formulation was so familiar that one might play with it. I don't know about the grace but the initial part of the story was told by Voltaire. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > [sci.astro dropped] > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Squeers : 'For what we have received, may the Lord make us > truly thankful!' But you have nothing to say about my actual point. On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:35:57 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:bb5209e0-277f-4b90-8c2d-79861fbba70e@j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> [sci.astro dropped] >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:21:06 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:5471ac79-85c6-4211-94c6-2fa1f22521ca@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com> >> in sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> On Feb 27, 12:56 am, "Brian M. Scott" >>> <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote: >> [...] >>>> And of course from British schoolboy literature one is >>>> familiar with 'For what we are about to receive, may the >>>> Lord make us truly thankful'. >>> No, one isn't. If you meant "I am familiar," why didn't >>> you say so? >> Because 'one is familiar' is ever so much more appropriate >> to the literature in question, of course! Not that this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> <http://www.stbarnabas.us/prayer/mtprayer.htm> by the church >> of St. Barnabas the Apostle in Fort Worth. >> By the way, a post-meal variant appears in Chapter 8 of _The >> Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby_, spoken by Mr >> Squeers : 'For what we have received, may the Lord make us >> truly thankful!' > But you have nothing to say about my actual point. You attempted to make several, and I responded to those that I thought warranted a response. I certainly can't get worked up about your notion that this very traditional grace puts the matter in 'a very peculiar way', if that's what you're going on about now. Brian > You attempted to make several, and I responded to those that > I thought warranted a response. I certainly can't get > worked up about your notion that this very traditional grace > puts the matter in 'a very peculiar way', if that's what > you're going on about now. And yet it is odd. In the British primary schools I attended where this grace was used, we all assumed it was a direct reference to the horror of school dinners, so we must have noticed it. When I went to secondary school, grace was said by one of the prefects so we got the one with "For what we are about to receive, my the Lord's name be breast and plaised", which no teacher ever seemed to notice. SignatureRob Bannister >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:36:06 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >What's "traditional Catholic" about that? Sounds pretty standard -- >that is, catholic -- to me. I'll be glad to answer your question, Peter, but first tell me which word you don't understand: "traditional" or "Catholic". http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=128 SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:13:44 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=128 What I don't understand is the claim that that particular prayer is Catholic as opposed to general Christian, or traditional American, or whatever its actual distribution may be. What it is _not_ is specifically Catholic. >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:13:44 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >What it is _not_ is specifically Catholic. No claim was made that the prayer is specific to Catholicism. Fried chicken is a traditional American Sunday dinner, but fried chicken is eaten in other countries and on other days. "Hello" is a traditional American greeting that is also used as a greeting elseplace. It is traditional in the Catholic church services for there to be a collection of offerings. It's understood that other denominations can follow the same practice. Something that is "traditional" for one group is nothing more than something that the group has been doing for a long period of time. There's nothing about the word that implies that the group has a lock on the practice. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:22:48 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > There's nothing about the word that implies that the group has a lock > on the practice. Are you _really_ unfamiliar with the way the word "traditional" is used in describing, at least, American folkways? One might say, for example, "Collard greens is a traditional African American side dish." That does not mean that no one else partakes of collard greens; but it means that collard greens are particulary associated with African American cuisine. Thus to assert that a certain grace-before-meals formulation is a "traditional Catholic" blessing is not a claim that no one else uses it, but it is an assertion that it is particularly associated with Catholicism -- which is manifestly untrue. On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:41:45 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:469cb420-29f5-4c3d-b76c-c2310376d901@x41g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> in sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > Thus to assert that a certain grace-before-meals > formulation is a "traditional Catholic" blessing is not a > claim that no one else uses it, but it is an assertion > that it is particularly associated with Catholicism -- > which is manifestly untrue. That has yet to be established. Certainly the notion that it is particularly associated with Catholicism is quite widespread. Brian > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:41:45 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > it is particularly associated with Catholicism is quite > widespread. The Community of the Holy Spirit, who are the Sisters from whom I learned it, are definitely toward the low-church end of the Anglican spectrum. (Their founding Mother emigrated from Toronto to New York in the face of racial prejudice -- as we learned from her autobiography published shortly before her death at a very advanced age ca. 1980, she was a mixed-race child -- and was closely associated with both Columbia University and the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, as was the school, neither institution either conservative or Catholic in their leanings.) >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:22:48 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >it, but it is an assertion that it is particularly associated with >Catholicism -- which is manifestly untrue. The problem with your statement is that this grace *is* particularly associated with Catholoicism...by Catholics. Perhaps not limited to Catholics, but certainly one that Catholics would associate with Catholicism. A Catholic, hearing that grace said by a non-Catholic, might say "Oh, I see you say the same grace as we do.". You really do pick the silliest arguments. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > Are you _really_ unfamiliar with the way the word "traditional" is > used in describing, at least, American folkways? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > collard greens; but it means that collard greens are particulary > associated with African American cuisine. That reminds me of a curious news story from last month. A school in Denver (I think) had fried chicken and collard greens on the lunch menu on Martin Luther King Jr Day (or is it "Martin Luther King, Jr, Day"?). The school got pounded in the press and apologized ... but a lot of people say that Dr King did in fact like those foods. If that's correct, wouldn't it be an acceptable tribute? SignatureCivilization is a race between catastrophe and education. [H G Wells] >> Are you _really_ unfamiliar with the way the word "traditional" is >> used in describing, at least, American folkways? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >lot of people say that Dr King did in fact like those foods. If >that's correct, wouldn't it be an acceptable tribute? A similar incident took place in 1997 when golfer Fuzzy Zoeller suggested that Tiger Woods not order fried chicken and collard greens as the menu for the Champions Dinner at the Masters golf tournament. It's traditional that the winner of the Masters gets to pick the menu for the next year's dinner. I imagine that Tiger would prefer that kind of controversy over what is currently on his plate. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>That reminds me of a curious news story from last month. A school in >>Denver (I think) had fried chicken and collard greens on the lunch [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I imagine that Tiger would prefer that kind of controversy over what > is currently on his plate. Nice garden-path "over" (in addition to the plate pun). SignatureClassical Greek lent itself to the promulgation of a rich culture, indeed, to Western civilization. Computer languages bring us doorbells that chime with thirty-two tunes, alt.sex.bestiality, and Tetris clones. (Stoll 1995) >> Are you _really_ unfamiliar with the way the word "traditional" is >> used in describing, at least, American folkways? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > lot of people say that Dr King did in fact like those foods. If > that's correct, wouldn't it be an acceptable tribute? It wasn't _a_ school, it was the entire district. They were having Dr King's favorite foods (according to the man himself, as I recall) on the lunch menu, but some undereducated overly sensitive morons decided to protest that the selection of foods was 'racists'. The district immediately caved, proving they are spineless morons. SignatureHi, I'm Gary Cooper, but not the Gary Cooper that's dead. tony cooper wrote, among other things: > None of our friends say grace - out loud - when we dine in a > restaurant, but they may do so to themselves. Nichts zu danken -- fünf Mark fünfzig bitte. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> The institutionalization of an annual day of gratefulness >>> is thus Christian in nature. In other words, one who [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >said on Thanksgiving even though it was not said on other >days? I would presume so, although I have not neen to all the households on all days. >> It is far more secularized these days, and far less religious >> than it was even then (at least in my circle of friends and >> acquaintances) although I assume there are rather religious >> people who take the "Thanks" more seriously. > >So what is the grace situation these days? kind of depends on the family. I think I covered this above. > ----- ----- > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >to accommodate the people when they assert their right to practise >their religion. There is no governmetnal stricture on people celebarating their own relision unless it is done too obviously on public, i.e., governmental, premises. Agencies still struggle on how to define "not too obviously". In general, if someone wants to post a few personal religious items in his or her cubicle, no one will object. If soemoen wants to put a crucifix with Christ hanging on it in the main lobby, there is a problem. >Unlike France, the US does not have a tradition >of "laicite" to support such a position. The French government >can ban Hajib in schools; never in the US. It's still something of a grey area as to how much religious regalia can be exhibited by students in public schools. Jews wear yarmulkas. Catholics may wear rosaries and crucifixes, but saying the "Hail Mary" out loud in a clssroom would be pushing it. Unfortunately, I suspect a student wearing a "There is no God" T-shirt would cause a bit of a ruckus. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > There is no governmetnal stricture on people celebarating their > own relision unless it is done too obviously on public, i.e., [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > object. If soemoen wants to put a crucifix with Christ hanging on > it in the main lobby, there is a problem. All this contrasts strangely with the phenomenon commented on frequently by Europeans and other non-Americans: that Americans mention God much more frequently than any other English-speaking nation with the possible exception of the Irish. Moreover, what about "In God we trust"? The USA may not have a state religion, but it certainly has a lot more religion than other non-theocracies. SignatureRob Bannister >> There is no governmetnal stricture on people celebarating their >> own relision unless it is done too obviously on public, i.e., [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > may not have a state religion, but it certainly has a lot more religion > than other non-theocracies. Perhaps adopting a state religion co-opts it, making it more difficult for the religion to function fully, but having religion separated from the state allows all kinds and variations to flourish. It does seem that autocratic leaders of either a religious or political stripe tend to use religion as a tool of political control or to try to destroy it as a subversive force. SignatureCheryl >> There is no governmetnal stricture on people celebarating their >> own relision unless it is done too obviously on public, i.e., [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >may not have a state religion, but it certainly has a lot more religion >than other non-theocracies. David, of the Omrud type, made this comment in a post in this thread: "It's a long-standing irritation of non-Americans on Usenet that some Americans on Usenet seem to think that Usenet is populated by Americans." That prompts me to comment that "It's a long-standing irritation of this American, and certainly some others, that some non-Americans seem to think that all Americans are constantly invoking God." As to "In God We Trust", it is our official national motto. Given that our government is run by politicians, we need *someone* to trust. Most Americans, at one time or another, have seen a sign up on the wall of some business that reads: "In God We Trust. All others pay cash." SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> There is no governmetnal stricture on people celebarating their >>> own relision unless it is done too obviously on public, i.e., [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >wall of some business that reads: "In God We Trust. All others pay >cash." Some of us remain irritated at Eisenhower's decision to widen the use of "In Go We Trust" to all money. And I still can't say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag with "under God" in it; it ruins the cadence of the way I learned it. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > And I still can't say the > Pledge of Allegiance to the flag with "under God" in it; it ruins > the cadence of the way I learned it. I much prefer it the way that Father O'Malley and Sister Benedict's kids said it in The Bells of St Mary's. But I refuse to say it at all anymore as I find the whole idea of it, and the fundie wackos using it as a stick to bully school kids into religious dogma, just too offensive. But, you know, if we lived in a sane country I'd say it the way it was originally written. SignatureHi, I'm Gary Cooper, but not the Gary Cooper that's dead. >> There is no governmetnal stricture on people celebarating their >> own relision unless it is done too obviously on public, i.e., [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > nation with the possible exception of the Irish. Moreover, what about > "In God we trust"? Annoying to many of us, but no more noticeable than the "D.G." (by the grace of God) and "F.D." (defender of the faith) on British coins. Or the anthem being "God Save the Queen". It's more of a historical curiosity. > The USA may not have a state religion, but it certainly has a lot > more religion than other non-theocracies. SignatureEvan 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 >>> There is no governmetnal stricture on people celebarating their >>> own relision unless it is done too obviously on public, i.e., [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >the anthem being "God Save the Queen". It's more of a historical >curiosity. Except that in the UK, at least, we don't have separation of Church and State. The national anthem is "God save the Queen" because she is both our head of state and head of the Church of England. We don't sing the national anthem with any regularity (although I must say yesterday's England rugby fans definitely outdid the England football fans for voice) or pledge allegiance to anything. >>>> There is no governmetnal stricture on people celebarating their >>>> own relision unless it is done too obviously on public, i.e., [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Except that in the UK, at least, we don't have separation of Church >and State. The UK has separation of Church and State except that a single Christian denomination that operates in only part of the UK has a degree of subordination to the State. > The national anthem is "God save the Queen" because she is >both our head of state and head of the Church of England. We don't >sing the national anthem with any regularity (although I must say >yesterday's England rugby fans definitely outdid the England football >fans for voice) or pledge allegiance to anything. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>Except that in the UK, at least, we don't have separation of Church >>and State. > > The UK has separation of Church and State except that a single Christian > denomination that operates in only part of the UK has a degree of > subordination to the State. I was going to bring up the Church of Scotland, but I see (from Wikipedia) that "it is the national church [but] ... not a state church" and has some official status but political independence. (The political dependence of the Church of England caused problems for the 1928 BCP.) SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? >>>Except that in the UK, at least, we don't have separation of Church >>>and State. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Wikipedia) that "it is the national church [but] ... not a state >church" and has some official status but political independence. The Church of Scotland is "established" but not in the same way as the Church of England. Neither church has a monopoly in its territory. The Church of England is epsicopalian whereas the Church of Scotland is presbyterian. The doctrine of the CofS was enshrined in the Westminster Confession of Faith which was enacted by Parliament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith Somewhere I have a short book or long pamphlet which discusses the fact that the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland is "governed" by that law. At the time the book was published the law was the "property" of the parliaments of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland separately within their jurisdictions. The suthor discussed the pros and cons and potential difficulties of amending or repealing the law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_in_Ireland In Britain various Wesleyan and Methodist Church merged in 1932 to create the Methodist Church of Great Britain. I understand that so as to ensure that the agreement they had reached was not overturned by a majority they had the agreement enacted as an Act of Parliament. Again I don't know the present status of that Act. >(The political dependence of the Church of England caused problems for >the 1928 BCP.) SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> There is no governmetnal stricture on people celebarating their >> own relision unless it is done too obviously on public, i.e., [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >may not have a state religion, but it certainly has a lot more religion >than other non-theocracies. I don't disagree one bit. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> For the record, I do not see the government setting up a >>>> holiday for a religious event as a priori favoring that [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > object. If soemoen wants to put a crucifix with Christ hanging on > it in the main lobby, there is a problem. Pratising a religion entails many "public" issues than just the use of government owned space. For example, many states issue special photo-less driver license for people who refuse to be photographed for religious reasons. >> Unlike France, the US does not have a tradition >> of "laicite" to support such a position. The French government [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > yarmulkas. Catholics may wear rosaries and crucifixes, but saying > the "Hail Mary" out loud in a clssroom would be pushing it. This is not a good example, since unless it is part of the curriculum, saying anything loud would clearly disrupts the class room. > Unfortunately, I suspect a student wearing a "There is no God" > T-shirt would cause a bit of a ruckus. What about "Who cares if there is a God?" :-) Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr <snip> >What about "Who cares if there is a God?" :-) Shirley, Mrs God cares, or is she a Ms? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > <snip> > >> What about "Who cares if there is a God?" :-) > > Shirley, Mrs God cares, or is she a Ms? Her name is Mrs Claus, aka Mary Christmas. I haven't yet worked out whether The Tooth Fairy is a Christian deity. From the information now available to me, it doesn't look as if she is known to non-Christians. Initially I thought that Satan was a purely Christian god, but it's starting to look as if he was ALSU known to the pre-Christian Jews. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Her name is Mrs Claus, aka Mary Christmas. Even though she was the former editor of Spread Magazine, she may be the most Christian woman around, who knows? In any case, Spread goes on without her: http://www.spreadmagazine.org/shop/ SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > It's still something of a grey area as to how much religious > regalia can be exhibited by students in public schools. Around here there is a very strict no hats rule in public schools that applies to everyone and includes hoods on jackets of 'hoodies', baseball caps, or anything else that covers any part of the head. The rule applies to everyone... except Jewish boys. Signature<jshock221> a freudian slip is when you say one thing but you're really thinking about a mother. <Spadgeroonie> no, a freudian slip is sexy underwear your mother wears >> It's still something of a grey area as to how much religious >> regalia can be exhibited by students in public schools. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > except Jewish boys. Do you have Sikhs? SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >> It's still something of a grey area as to how much religious >> regalia can be exhibited by students in public schools. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > except Jewish boys. That surprises me. Typically such an exception is worded so as to include, e.g., Sikh boys/men wearing turbans and Muslim girls/women wearing various head-coverings. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Feeling good about government is like 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |looking on the bright side of any Palo Alto, CA 94304 |catastrophe. When you quit looking |on the bright side, the catastrophe kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |is still there. (650)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> It's still something of a grey area as to how much religious >>> regalia can be exhibited by students in public schools. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > include, e.g., Sikh boys/men wearing turbans and Muslim girls/women > wearing various head-coverings. Oh, I have no idea how it's worded. I just know from observation that the only kids I see wearing anything on their heads are boys wearing beanies-- er, I can't spell yama-- yamu-- that word. Personally, I think if you're going to have a rule, you have a rule. If my kid can't wear his <INSERT TEAM NAME HERE> baseball cap, which is at least as important to him as someone else's <INSERT DEITY NAME HERE> hat, then no one gets to wear a hat. But then I'm sick of governments making allowances for the mass delusion of religious dogma. SignatureA ship should not ride on a single anchor, nor life on a single hope >>>> It's still something of a grey area as to how much religious >>>> regalia can be exhibited by students in public schools. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > which is at least as important to him as someone else's <INSERT DEITY > NAME HERE> hat, then no one gets to wear a hat. I presume that, to be fair, you'd have no problem with the school making a (uniform) rule that required some behavior that your son and you considered improper or immoral. > But then I'm sick of governments making allowances for the mass > delusion of religious dogma. Interestingly, the one you choose to complain about is the religious dogma of a minority. Do you similarly complain about the religion- and culture-inspired allowances to things like body modesty. I presume that your son's scool has separate boys' and girls' bathrooms and locker rooms. That if the boys play "shirts and skins", the girls don't. That what's considered "improper dress" differs for boys and girls. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The misinformation that passes for 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |gospel wisdom about English usage Palo Alto, CA 94304 |is sometimes astounding. | Merriam-Webster's Dictionary kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | of English Usage (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>>> It's still something of a grey area as to how much religious >>>>> regalia can be exhibited by students in public schools. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > making a (uniform) rule that required some behavior that your son and > you considered improper or immoral. You'd have to be more specific. I'm not a big believer in 'immoral', which is almost always code for "my invisible friend says it's wrong, therefore YOU shouldn't do it." >> But then I'm sick of governments making allowances for the mass >> delusion of religious dogma. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > don't. That what's considered "improper dress" differs for boys and > girls. I think sex specific restrooms are completely absurd. I went to college without them and never had any problems at all, and those bathrooms had showers and were used by multiple people at once (the one on my floor had 4 stalls, 4 showers, and 4 sinks) and was shared by the 22 young men and women on my floor. I don't think anyone does 'shirts' v 'skins' anymore. And as for 'improper dress' being sex specific, yeah, that's stupid too. And I don't appreciate that the military has a different hair code for women than men. If there's a reason to have a hair code, then it should apply the same to everyone. SignatureIn other news, Gandalf died. -- Secret Diary of Boromir >I don't think anyone does 'shirts' v 'skins' anymore. I take it you've never been by a playground pick-up basketball game. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > >I don't think anyone does 'shirts' v 'skins' anymore. > > I take it you've never been by a playground pick-up basketball game. Does that have anything to do with what he was talking about, namely, the different treatment of boys and girls in the context of an official school activity? >> >I don't think anyone does 'shirts' v 'skins' anymore. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the different treatment of boys and girls in the context of an > official school activity? Only in that if girls played shirts and skins (or even "shirts and bras") at recess, they would almost certainly be in violation of an official school policy. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing. | Dean Thompson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Does that have anything to do with what he was talking about, namely, >> the different treatment of boys and girls in the context of an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bras") at recess, they would almost certainly be in violation of an > official school policy. ...on the next episode of Law & Order: Phys.Ed. SignatureI worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my daughter] will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?' [Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/ ] >> I don't think anyone does 'shirts' v 'skins' anymore. > > I take it you've never been by a playground pick-up basketball game. We were talking about schools, not random playgrounds. As for random playgrounds, I see plenty of females playing in sports bras (jogging bras) which I would consider 'skins'. SignatureSarah, age 18, says "man, once you go crayola you can't go back." >> It's still something of a grey area as to how much religious >> regalia can be exhibited by students in public schools. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > except Jewish boys. One could argue that a yarmulke isn't exactly a hat as such, since it's fairly common to wear a hat over one outdoors. SignatureIn the 1970s, people began receiving utility bills for -£999,999,996.32 and it became harder to sustain the myth of the infallible electronic brain. (Stob 2001) >> It's still something of a grey area as to how much religious >> regalia can be exhibited by students in public schools. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > except Jewish boys. What about Muslim girls? SignatureRob Bannister > It's still something of a grey area as to how much religious > regalia can be exhibited by students in public schools. Jews wear > yarmulkas. Catholics may wear rosaries and crucifixes, but saying > the "Hail Mary" out loud in a clssroom would be pushing it. Here in the UK, the only people (other than nuns) that you see *wearing* rosaries (rather than carrying them in their pockets or just using them) are dopey teenagers wearing them as bling necklaces. Some department stores even sell them in the costume jewellery sections now. SignatureIn the 1970s, people began receiving utility bills for -£999,999,996.32 and it became harder to sustain the myth of the infallible electronic brain. (Stob 2001) > Awareness of good fortune, gratitude to those who make it possible (in > a secular sense), remembering various national myths, spending time > with the family (and/or football), eating turkey, planning a trip to > the sales....that's what Thanksgiving Day is about for most people. Are you sure that you're not confusing it with Christmas Day ... erm ... New Year's Day? (-: > > OTOH. Thanksgiving is still there. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thanksgiving has a rather odd status, especially, I think, in the US. It > could easily be argued that it isn't a religious holiday at all. That's not even a controversial position AFAIK--though it was originally religiously inspired (in part), Thanksgiving is certainly not a religious holiday in any religion I'm aware of. > <snip> [I tried to explain Thanksgiving to a Haitian once] > I sometimes wonder why so many Canadian primary school teacher seem > to think that the Canadian Thanksgiving holiday should be > commemorated with colouring sheets showing pilgrim fathers in funny > hats. The turkeys I can understand, since most Canadian households > will probably serve a turkey, but those guys who came to what is > now the US on the Mayflower don't belong in our national mythology. It might be mainland influence. Some of my ancestors were Americans until that earlier unpleasantness with the teabags, and that's true for many people in Ontario and New Brunswick. >> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >until that earlier unpleasantness with the teabags, and that's true >for many people in Ontario and New Brunswick. I believe tea bags came later. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> <snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I believe tea bags came later. I meant the freedom-fighters. >>>> <snip> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >I meant the freedom-fighters. You've whoosed me. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>> <snip> >>>> [I tried to explain Thanksgiving to a Haitian once] [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You've whoosed me. I suspecting he was making an allusion to the United Empire Loyalists bringing American traditions north when they fled what was becoming the US under the onslaught of the freedom fight...I mean, the heroic armies and militias that won the American Rebell...American War of Independence. Terminology for historical or political events depends so much on the side from which you view said events. SignatureCheryl >>>>>> <snip> >>>>> [I tried to explain Thanksgiving to a Haitian once] [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Terminology for historical or political events depends so much on > the side from which you view said events. Indeed. I was comparing the ones in Boston Harbor to the present lot. Freedom the watchword, profit the motive. >>>>>> <snip> >>>>> [I tried to explain Thanksgiving to a Haitian once] [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Terminology for historical or political events depends so much on the >side from which you view said events. Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier unpleasantness with the tea bags" meant. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> [I tried to explain Thanksgiving to a Haitian once] [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier > unpleasantness with the tea bags" meant. Boston Tea Party, although another poster pointed out that tea bags came later, which I think is an allusion to loose tea at the Boston tea party, and also to far more recent political action in the US which I haven't been following closely, but which I think involve tea bags or tea parties or something similar. 'Similar' in the political action sense, not in the teapot and scones sense. SignatureCheryl > >>>>>>> <snip> > >>>>>> [I tried to explain Thanksgiving to a Haitian once] [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > 'Similar' in the political action sense, not in the teapot and scones sense. The teabaggers are actually hilarious. Funded by rightwing nutcase billionaires, the sheeple got together in a few demonstrations that sought to honor the memory of the Boston Tea Party (not that any of them would have the slightest idea what that was about -- specifically, it was about _lifting_ a certain tariff that had been good for the Colonies, without the Colonies having had any say in the debate) by decorating their paraphernalia with dangling tea bags. (They managed to stage a demonstration in Washington, DC that _might_ have had as many as 10,000 attenders, at which placards were carried portraying Obama as either Hitler (with mustache) or as African savage (with bone through the nose). (And one of the more popular TV nutcases "illustrated" the event by showing file footage of an entirely different DC demonstration that had the more typical attendance of around 100,000.)) Then, when observers started calling them "teabaggers," they adopted the monicker with pride -- until someone noticed that "teabagging" is a slang term for a slightly unorthodox sexual practice. Now, of course, they are _terribly_ offended if anyone dares to use that word. (I went to my congressman's first -- of ten, held two-a-day for a week throughout his disctrict -- "town meeting" in early August, before the movement had attracted attention but after the screaming had already started, and "low-information voter" vastly overestimates their competence. Some of them were picketing outside the hall with _commercially pre-printed_ signs reading "I am not a mob.") >Then, when observers started calling them "teabaggers," they adopted >the monicker with pride -- until someone noticed that "teabagging" is >a slang term for a slightly unorthodox sexual practice. Now, of >course, they are _terribly_ offended if anyone dares to use that word. Damn. You made me look it up... Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>...I still don't understand what the "earlier >> unpleasantness with the tea bags" meant. > >Boston Tea Party, Back to square one, for that is what I thought you meant, several days ago. >although another poster pointed out that tea bags came >later, That was me. >which I think is an allusion to loose tea at the Boston tea >party, and also to far more recent political action in the US which I >haven't been following closely, but which I think involve tea bags or >tea parties or something similar. Now you're talking about the Tea Party movement, populated by a number of American conservatives tired of Obama's policies, or should I say his Moveable Feast. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > Now you're talking about the Tea Party movement, populated by a > number of American conservatives tired of Obama's policies, or > should I say his Moveable Feast. They got tired quickly of them awfully quickly. He took office on January 20th and the first "Tea Party" events were on February 16th-18th. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The law of supply and demand tells us 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that when the price of something is Palo Alto, CA 94304 |artificially set below market level, |there will soon be none of that thing kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |left--as you may have noticed the (650)857-7572 |last time you tried to buy something |for nothing. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | P.J. O'Rourke >> Now you're talking about the Tea Party movement, populated by a >> number of American conservatives tired of Obama's policies, or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >January 20th and the first "Tea Party" events were on February >16th-18th. Yes, his downhill slide in popularity began soon after he entered the White House, as it became clear he had promised far more than anyone could deliver. But new presidents are typically at the pinnacle of their popularity on Election Day, so it should not be a worrying sign for him if he can learn to work with Republicans in the coming months. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:26:09 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Chuck Riggs, > An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE You seem to have lived near Dublin a bit too long. The republicans are not interested in being worked with. Their latest mantra for (not) dealing with health insurance is to throw out everything that's been done for the past year and start over -- and pass a bill that has everything the republicans want and nothing the Democrats waht. And the only things the republicans want is "tort reform" and "sell insurance across state lines." Their proposals (one can't call it a "plan") would cover 3 million of the uninsured. Even Obama's whittled- down-to-nothing Senate bill would cover 30 million of the uninsured. <snip> >>...his [Obama's] downhill slide in popularity began soon after he entered the >> White House, as it became clear he had promised far more than anyone >> could deliver. But new presidents are typically at the pinnacle of >> their popularity on Election Day, so it should not be a worrying sign >> for him if he can learn to work with Republicans in the coming months. >You seem to have lived near Dublin a bit too long. You should realize that in this information age, news is equally available to everyone, at least to everyone who lives in a free, technologically advanced country. >The republicans are not interested in being worked with. > >Their latest mantra for (not) dealing with health insurance is to >throw out everything that's been done for the past year and start over >-- and pass a bill that has everything the republicans want and >nothing the Democrats waht. That is a natural reaction to being ignored by the president during his first year. Obviously, if they want to get anything done in the changed environment, Obama's team will have to learn to work with the other party. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:48:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > changed environment, Obama's team will have to learn to work with the > other party. If you vote in the US, you're what is called a "low-information voter." Obama spent the entire year bending over backwards and caving in to republican demands. The _starting point_ for the health insurance discussions was the compromise that ignored just about everything he had promised during the campaign, and on the "bank bailout" and "stimulus package," he did exactly what the bushies had done and had proposed. The Senate Finance Committee set up a subgroup of six (three of each) to come up with proposals both sides could live with. They produced nothing. Then they put all sorts of things into the bill that Olympia Snow (R-ME) wanted -- and then she didn't provide even the single republican vote in the committee. At the Committee's hearings, single-payer advocates were not even allowed to testify. >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:48:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >At the Committee's hearings, single-payer advocates were not even >allowed to testify. Like Anne of Green Gables, that Representative probably insists on proper closure to one of her names. A shrewd and intelligent politician who often votes with the Democrats, she was my Representative for a number of years, at the same time George Mitchell was one of my Senators. I can't remember who the other one was. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 05:27:08 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Representative for a number of years, at the same time George Mitchell > was one of my Senators. I can't remember who the other one was. Probably Bill Cohen, the Republican senator who later served as Secretary of Defense under Clinton. >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 05:27:08 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >Probably Bill Cohen, the Republican senator who later served as >Secretary of Defense under Clinton. That's the one, a Bangor boy. Thank you. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > >> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Representative for a number of years, at the same time George Mitchell > was one of my Senators. I can't remember who the other one was. What _are_ you talking about? Where did I say anything at all about a Representative, or about the House in general? > > >> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > What _are_ you talking about? Where did I say anything at all about a > Representative, or about the House in general? I think he's trying to point out that Olympia's last name is Snowe (with a terminal "e"), but the phraseology was a bit opaque and she's long-since been upgraded to the Senate. >> > >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >(with a terminal "e"), but the phraseology was a bit opaque and she's >long-since been upgraded to the Senate. Opacity is often the name of the game in this newsgroup. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> ...his [Obama's] downhill slide in popularity began soon after he entered the [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Opacity is often the name of the game in this newsgroup. Yet you see right through us, Chuck. SignatureJames <snip> >> Opacity is often the name of the game in this newsgroup. > >Yet you see right through us, Chuck. I often want to paint it black, but thank you, James. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > <snip> > >>> Opacity is often the name of the game in this newsgroup. >> Yet you see right through us, Chuck. > > I often want to paint it black, but thank you, James. It was actually a red door. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >It was actually a red door. Not if you paint it black, it ain't. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > Opacity is often the name of the game in this newsgroup. I don't see that. SignatureRid yourself of doubt -- or should you? -George Carlin >> Opacity is often the name of the game in this newsgroup. > >I don't see that. Hey! Who said that??? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> Opacity is often the name of the game in this newsgroup. > >I don't see that. Exercising your abilities with Zen duality, you may be able to. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:19:41 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chriggs@eircom.net> wrote in <news:umvpo5lsh79qobic8pt47vne7hh8gvpssl@4ax.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] >>The republicans are not interested in being worked with. >> Their latest mantra for (not) dealing with health >> insurance is to throw out everything that's been done >> for the past year and start over -- and pass a bill that >> has everything the republicans want and nothing the >> Democrats waht. > That is a natural reaction to being ignored by the > president during his first year. Obviously, if they want > to get anything done in the changed environment, Obama's > team will have to learn to work with the other party. You really are out of touch, I'm afraid. Far from ignoring or riding roughshod over the Republicans, he went out of his way to come to an accommodation with them. Brian >On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:19:41 +0000, Chuck Riggs ><chriggs@eircom.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >or riding roughshod over the Republicans, he went out of his >way to come to an accommodation with them. In your opinion. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:38:34 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chriggs@eircom.net> wrote in <news:j1mso59gkatrhjhsk9pofv7f8mvstmvdvu@4ax.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:19:41 +0000, Chuck Riggs >><chriggs@eircom.net> wrote in >><news:umvpo5lsh79qobic8pt47vne7hh8gvpssl@4ax.com> in >>sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>[...] >>>>The republicans are not interested in being worked with. >>>> Their latest mantra for (not) dealing with health >>>> insurance is to throw out everything that's been done >>>> for the past year and start over -- and pass a bill that >>>> has everything the republicans want and nothing the >>>> Democrats waht. >>> That is a natural reaction to being ignored by the >>> president during his first year. Obviously, if they want >>> to get anything done in the changed environment, Obama's >>> team will have to learn to work with the other party. >>You really are out of touch, I'm afraid. Far from ignoring >>or riding roughshod over the Republicans, he went out of his >>way to come to an accommodation with them. > In your opinion. Yes. Which is evidently better informed than yours. Brian >> Now you're talking about the Tea Party movement, populated by a >> number of American conservatives tired of Obama's policies, or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > January 20th and the first "Tea Party" events were on February > 16th-18th. I think the correct term is tea-baggers. Signature<jshock221> a freudian slip is when you say one thing but you're really thinking about a mother. <Spadgeroonie> no, a freudian slip is sexy underwear your mother wears > Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier > unpleasantness with the tea bags" meant. teabagging? >>I suspecting he was making an allusion to the United Empire Loyalists >>bringing American traditions north when they fled what was becoming the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier >unpleasantness with the tea bags" meant. You obviously don't know that in the latter part of the 18th century the British East India Company was shipping its product in tea bags. Thousands and thousands of teabags floating in Boston Harbor.... Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Hatunen filted: >>Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier >>unpleasantness with the tea bags" meant. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Thousands and thousands of teabags floating in Boston Harbor.... That's the absurd image in the minds of most readers at this point, but what containers *were* used to transport tea?...was it in fact wooden crates, as I've usually seen the BTP portrayed, or might the tea actually have been packed into burlap sacks (therefore *technically* "tea bags") for shipment?...r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >Hatunen filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >usually seen the BTP portrayed, or might the tea actually have been packed into >burlap sacks (therefore *technically* "tea bags") for shipment?...r If memory serves [*], it was in chests. [*] No, not personal memory of the event; memory of reading about it. On the ohter hand one of our state's Senators might have firsthand knowldge... Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Hatunen filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > usually seen the BTP portrayed, or might the tea actually have been packed into > burlap sacks (therefore *technically* "tea bags") for shipment?...r Teachests, surely. Nick, wondering about the chewing gum. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >> Hatunen filted: >>>> Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Teachests, surely. Yes. Here's an eyewitness photograph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Boston_Tea_Party-Cooper .jpg/800px-Boston_Tea_Party-Cooper.jpg SignatureJames > >> Hatunen filted: > >>>> Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -- > James Yes! Late examples seen here (we may still have one in the garage) were of light wood, maybe 80cm on a side, and I think lined with foil. Perhaps not the original 18th century design. Stronger than a cardboard box. But structurally I would not think they would be adequate to the requirements of the Tea Chest Bass, a popular South Pacific Improvised Musical Device. Ross Clark On 1 Mar, 21:44, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > >> Hatunen filted: > > >>>> Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Ross Clark Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rhoener_Saeuwaentzt_Guenther.jpg >On 1 Mar, 21:44, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rhoener_Saeuwaentzt_Guenther.jpg I recognise that as a typical tea chest of the type my parents used for storage in our home in the 1950s (UK). I am surprised that those shown in the image in Wikipedia are flattish rather than cubic. That construction would be a waste of wood and of space. They may be artist's impressions. I'm far from being an expert on sailing ships but there are features of the rigging that strike me as unusual. Perhaps the artist had never studied in detail either a tea chest or a sailing ship. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >I recognise that as a typical tea chest of the type my parents used for >storage in our home in the 1950s (UK). We have one in our garage. How many years does it take for a tea-chest to graduate from "not unpacked yet" to "storage"? I think this one must be coming up to its 24th year. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>> Hatunen filted: >>>>> Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Boston_Tea_Party-Cooper .jpg/800px-Boston_Tea_Party-Cooper.jpg That proves it, by God! SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE James wrote on Mon, 01 Mar 2010 08:59:42 +0100: >>> Hatunen filted: >>>>> Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> Teachests, surely. > Yes. Here's an eyewitness photograph: > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Boston_Tea_Party-Cooper .jpg/800px-Boston_Tea_Party-Cooper.jpg "Photograph", James? For a moment, I thought I was going to have to revise my small knowledge of history. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not >>> Hatunen filted: >>>>> Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Boston_Tea_Party-Cooper .jpg/800px-Boston_Tea_Party-Cooper.jpg Strong sailors if one man could pick up a full teachest (and don't forget all those sharp bits round the edges). SignatureRob Bannister >>> Hatunen filted: >>>>> Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Boston_Tea_Party-Cooper .jpg/800px-Boston_Tea_Party-Cooper.jpg As if! They can't even spell Boston properly. Obviously a poor potatochop job. SignatureI wrote this song two hours before we met. I didn't know your name, or what you looked like yet.... >>>> Hatunen filted: >>>>>> Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > As if! They can't even spell Boston properly. Obviously a poor > potatochop job. They had a lifp. SignatureJames >>>>> Hatunen filted: >>>>>>> Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > They had a lifp. Lithp ith thpelt wif a 'th', not an 'eff' or a long 'ess'. >>>>>> Hatunen filted: >>>>>>>> Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> > Lithp ith thpelt wif a 'th', not an 'eff' or a long 'ess'. No, not a lisp. What's that thing that spells the same backwards as forwards? SignatureJames >>>>>>> Hatunen filted: >>>>>>>>> Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > No, not a lisp. What's that thing that spells the same backwards as > forwards? Well, it's not a palimpsest. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>>>>>> Hatunen filted: >>>>>>>>>> Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> > Well, it's not a palimpsest. It's a palindromordnilap Signature++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start. >>>>>>> Hatunen filted: >>>>>>>>> Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > No, not a lisp. What's that thing that spells the same backwards as > forwards? A 'emordnilap'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palindrome http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/palindrome James Hogg filted: >>>> As if! They can't even spell Boston properly. Obviously a poor >>>> potatochop job. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >No, not a lisp. What's that thing that spells the same backwards as >forwards? Notlob....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > James Hogg filted: >>>>> As if! They can't even spell Boston properly. Obviously a poor [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Notlob....r No, definitely not lob. SignatureJames >>>>>>> Hatunen filted: >>>>>>>>> Very true, but I still don't understand what the "earlier [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > No, not a lisp. What's that thing that spells the same backwards as > forwards? A palindromeemordnilap? SignatureRob Bannister >>>> As if! They can't even spell Boston properly. Obviously a poor >>>> potatochop job. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, not a lisp. What's that thing that spells the same backwards as > forwards? A wand for ambidextrous witches? No, that doesn't seem right. Hmmm ... Aha! I know! It's the mirror used by the queen in Snow White, isn't it? >Hatunen filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >usually seen the BTP portrayed, or might the tea actually have been packed into >burlap sacks (therefore *technically* "tea bags") for shipment?...r Wouldn't moist sea air ruin tea packed in burlap sacks, on long voyages? I suspect the many movies and docudramas had it about right: the tea was packed in wooden crates. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Chuck Riggs filted: >>Hatunen filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >voyages? I suspect the many movies and docudramas had it about right: >the tea was packed in wooden crates. Rice would suffer being dumped in the ocean, if it were packed in burlap sacks...and yet, that's how they pack it....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >Chuck Riggs filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Rice would suffer being dumped in the ocean, if it were packed in burlap >sacks...and yet, that's how they pack it....r With the sacks packed in containers suitable for loading aboard container ships, if we've shifted to a discussion of the present day. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > Hatunen filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > usually seen the BTP portrayed, or might the tea actually have been packed into > burlap sacks (therefore *technically* "tea bags") for shipment?...r You wouldn't ship tea in burlap. You need something that keeps it from drying out. Since the time period is before the fine are of tinning dry goods, sealed wooden crates seems likely. Probably sealed with pitch or maybe wax? SignatureI wrote this song two hours before we met. I didn't know your name, or what you looked like yet.... > [...] > You wouldn't ship tea in burlap. You need something that keeps it from > drying out. [...] No, you want to keep the tea leaves dry. You don't want moisture to get in to make them rot. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > Hatunen filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > tea actually have been packed into burlap sacks (therefore > *technically* "tea bags") for shipment?...r Bulk tea is still shipped loose in wooden chests or boxes, and (at least up to a few years ago) the empty boxes were still sought after by those moving house, to pack belongings. I think I still have one out in the garden shed. Anyways, weren't the original Tea Party perps American Indians? That was the claim. Or at least the disguise supposedly used. As I understand it, "tea bagging" these days has a very different meaning, though possibly appropriate for the unpleasant opponents of the Obama plan. Modesty forbids further explanation. SignatureMike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) > Anyways, weren't the original Tea Party perps American Indians? That > was the claim. Or at least the disguise supposedly used. I don't think it was ever a claim, just the disguise used to hide their individual identities[1]. As early as March 7, 1774--less than two months after the incident--I see This negociation, therefore, being brought to a crisis, a town- meeting was called about the middle of Dec. last, when an account of the several demands and refusals, with the reasons that prevented the compliance, were very fairly reported by Mr. Rotch; upon which a signal was given, and presently a number of men disguised, like Indians, boarded the vessel in which the tea was stowed, broke open the chests, and committed the contents to the sea. Proceedings in Parliament, in _The Gentleman's Magazine_, October, 1774 [1] And if Wikipedia's "some of them thinly disguised as Mohawk Indians" can be believed, not necessarily all or even most of them. Probably just those who felt that they stood to lose the most if they were identified. SignatureEvan 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/ >Thanksgiving has a rather odd status, especially, I think, in the US. It >could easily be argued that it isn't a religious holiday at all. In some >places, 'Thanksgiving' refers to being grateful that the farm produced >enough produce to keep everyone free of starvation through the winter, >and such gratitude is often expressed to God through religion, but >doesn't necessarily have to be so. Thanksgiving has traditionally been a day of giving thanks for a bountiful harvest. Thanks are given to someone, and that someone has traditionally been God. In 1789, Goerge Washington proclaimed, "NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and affign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of thefe States to the fervice of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our fincere and humble thanksfor His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the fignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpofitions of His providence in the courfe and conclufion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have fince enjoyed; . . ." In his 2008 proclamation, George W Bush said, "On this day, let us all give thanks to God who blessed our Nation's first days and who blesses us today. May He continue to guide and watch over our families and our country always." Thanksgiving has always been intended as a relgious day. >And in the case of Christianity, it >doesn't mark a specific event so much as it's an exaggerated form of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >new land and feasting with the locals, so it seems as though the US >version is more of a national or cultural holiday than a religious one. That's all ancillary clutter. As the quotes above show Thanksgiving exists to give thanks to God. On the other hand, I don't think there's much doubt that the day is generally treated as a secular occasion. >I sometimes wonder why so many Canadian primary school teacher seem to >think that the Canadian Thanksgiving holiday should be commemorated with >colouring sheets showing pilgrim fathers in funny hats. The turkeys I >can understand, since most Canadian households will probably serve a >turkey, but those guys who came to what is now the US on the Mayflower >don't belong in our national mythology. Canada became a nation largely as a counter to the American Revolution and the creation of the United States of America. Up until the revolution, present day Canada (save for Quebec) was just more Britsh-American colonies, and all that Pilgrim stuff is part of Canadian heritage just as much as it is a heritage of the Ohioans from whom I come. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Canada became a nation largely as a counter to the American > Revolution and the creation of the United States of America. Up > until the revolution, present day Canada (save for Quebec) was > just more British-American colonies, and all that Pilgrim stuff is > part of Canadian heritage just as much as it is a heritage of the > Ohioans from whom I come. That it most definitely is not. There is no connection between the Pilgrims and what became Canada. I can't think of anything in Canadian history that connects to that whole "fleeing from persecution to a New Land where we can practice our religion" until much, much later, and that generally involved central Europeans. Our heritage comes from the fishers and trappers and related businesses, not from the more successful than average attempt at planting a private religious colony at Plymouth. That 'save for Quebec' is a pretty big exception, too. SignatureCheryl >> Canada became a nation largely as a counter to the American >> Revolution and the creation of the United States of America. Up [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That it most definitely is not. There is no connection between the >Pilgrims and what became Canada. There's no connection between the Pilgrims and what became Arizona, either. But I think there is a connection through the United Empire Loyalists. >I can't think of anything in Canadian >history that connects to that whole "fleeing from persecution to a New >Land where we can practice our religion" until much, much later, and >that generally involved central Europeans. Ah. You're going with the religious aspects rather than the matter of the establishment of early British colonies for whatever reason. That's a bit different. BTW, the Pilgims weren't really fleeing religious persecution so much as tehy wanted somewhere where they were free to do the persecuting. >Our heritage comes from the fishers and trappers and related businesses, >not from the more successful than average attempt at planting a private >religious colony at Plymouth. > >That 'save for Quebec' is a pretty big exception, too. Naturally. Just ask any Quebeker how exceptional they are. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> That it most definitely is not. There is no connection between the >> Pilgrims and what became Canada. > > There's no connection between the Pilgrims and what became > Arizona, either. But I think there is a connection through the > United Empire Loyalists. Ah, yes, the refugees from the American Revolution. I don't think they were a bunch who were particularly likely to import tales related to the founding of the United States, though. Some of the later American emigrants, particularly in the West, perhaps, although I suspect some of the attribution of the perceived faults of western Canada (particularly politically) to the American influence is due to name-calling by easterners who don't understand westerner. > Ah. You're going with the religious aspects rather than the > matter of the establishment of early British colonies for > whatever reason. That's a bit different. I was also thinking about the way the Pilgrim story was so entwined in the American national mythology, but in Canada is merely a picturesque tale about something that happened down south long ago. > BTW, the Pilgims weren't > really fleeing religious persecution so much as tehy wanted > somewhere where they were free to do the persecuting. I eventually found that out, at some point long after I'd been exposed to the 'poor pious refugees struggling to find a place where they could live free and found a great country' version. My father was an American, and between him and his uncle who felt we should know more about our American side than we did, I and my siblings got at least a basic exposure to American History for Children. I noticed at some differences between that and what we were taught in school. SignatureCheryl >>> That it most definitely is not. There is no connection between the >>> Pilgrims and what became Canada. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >politically) to the American influence is due to name-calling by >easterners who don't understand westerner. On at least one historical occasion the premier of Saskatchewan declared that if Quebec got any sort of autonomy, Saskatchewan would apply to be an American state. >> Ah. You're going with the religious aspects rather than the >> matter of the establishment of early British colonies for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the American national mythology, but in Canada is merely a picturesque >tale about something that happened down south long ago. Holidays are great times for picturesque tales.... Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> Canada became a nation largely as a counter to the American >>> Revolution and the creation of the United States of America. Up [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > really fleeing religious persecution so much as tehy wanted > somewhere where they were free to do the persecuting. Well, to practise their theocracy at least. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >>>> Canada became a nation largely as a counter to the American >>>> Revolution and the creation of the United States of America. Up [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Well, to practise their theocracy at least. The story of Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island colony, is a famous example of religious persecution by the Pilgrims. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> Are you saying that Easter is not a holiday in your state? >> In the US, the is really no concept of "official holidays". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> than these laws, basically every organization sets its own >> holidays. I thought Tak To had done a pretty good job of explaining American holidays. I, at least, have learnt a lot. > In any case, as a religious holiday Easter can't be a holiday > anywhere in the USA. Since it's always on Sunday, this has little > impact. Funny. I'm not a Christian, but I think of Easter as being on Friday. >> Thus, a "federal holiday" merely means that it is a holiday >> for the federal government offices, post offices, etc. >> Likewise, a "state holiday" means only that it is a holiday >> for state government offices. Each school district (typically >> one per town) sets its own holiday schedules, which may or >> may not following the state holiday schedule. Must get confusing near state borders, but that's normal. Our states have a few different holidays too, but school holidays are organised on a state-wide basis. > Here in Tucson the local school district does not take the > President's Day holiday but gives the Thursday and Friday of [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > And, just in case someone was going to ask, Christmas has been > adjudicated to be a secular holiday. Or a retail celebration. SignatureRob Bannister > >>> Are you saying that Easter is not a holiday in your state? > >> In the US, the is really no concept of "official holidays". [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Funny. I'm not a Christian, but I think of Easter as being on Friday. Why would you think that? > >> Thus, a "federal holiday" merely means that it is a holiday > >> for the federal government offices, post offices, etc. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Or a retail celebration. >> Funny. I'm not a Christian, but I think of Easter as being on Friday. > > Why would you think that? Because that is the Big Day when everything shuts down. It's true that Monday is a holiday too and, until recently, government workers got the Tuesday off as well, but Friday is the big one. I'm sure the churchy people do things on the Saturday and Sunday too, but that doesn't concern most people. SignatureRob Bannister > >> Funny. I'm not a Christian, but I think of Easter as being on Friday. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Monday is a holiday too and, until recently, government workers got the > Tuesday off as well, but Friday is the big one I'm guessing that you are from England or a Commonwealth country, or perhaps a non-English-speaking nation. As an American, this seems a bit confusing to me--I've never worked at a job or attended a school where anything was shut down on the Friday before Easter, or the following Monday. There are about 10 states in the US where the Friday is a day off, but AFAIK there's not a single one where the Monday is a holiday (North Carolina apparently _was_ such a state 20+ years ago). > As an American, this seems a bit confusing to me--I've never worked > at a job or attended a school where anything was shut down on the > Friday before Easter, or the following Monday. There are about 10 > states in the US where the Friday is a day off, but AFAIK there's > not a single one where the Monday is a holiday (North Carolina > apparently _was_ such a state 20+ years ago). HP had it as a holiday when I was hired 20-odd years ago (though as a "Spring Holiday" that always happened to fall on Good Friday). This was an oddity, and I presumed that it represented the personal preference of one or both of the founders. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The skinny models whose main job is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to display clothes aren't hired for Palo Alto, CA 94304 |their sex appeal. They're hired |for their resemblance to a kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |coat-hanger. (650)857-7572 | Peter Moylan http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> Thus, a "federal holiday" merely means that it is a holiday >>> for the federal government offices, post offices, etc. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> President's Day holiday but gives the Thursday and Friday of >> Rodeo Week off. Which is because the local school board sets the holidays. YMMV. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > For instance, there may be a "Spring Break Holiday" >which conveniently is timed to cover Passover, Good Friday and >Easter. This gets tricky when Easter falls particularly early or >late on the calendar. (Hebrew) Passover, being tied to the (nominal) Lunar Month, varies almost as much by the Gregorian Calendar as Easter Sunday does (tied to a different nominal Lunar Month, and to the Week). They should therefore be near each other, except when they differ by a month as to which Full Moon is to be used. So it does not necessarily get tricky when Easter is particularly early or late, but ideally only about 50% of the time. In 2000-2019, they are far apart in 2005, 2008, 2016 (all Easter earlier). That "all" may be merely be chance, or it may be due to the accumulated drift between the calendars. The difference of about (365.2468222-365.2425000) days in average length makes a one-year difference between the Hebrew and Gregorian Calendars in about 84503 years; the exact interval is not a multiple of either Year. Always, 14390140400 years Gregorian = 14389970112 years Hebrew, exactly. <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/heb-date.htm>. By current (?) law, Israel will eventually have problems with Summer Time, since it starts on the Friday before April 2nd and finishes on the Sunday between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. Signature(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc. > >>> John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com>: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > "Spring Recess" to include both of them. (For 2010, it > is a 10 day stretch that starts on Good Friday). I suspect you don't know what or when Ascension Day is ... > Larger organizations in the US typically has some paid > "personal days" so that people can use take them for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The exchanges are closed. Most firms in the related > businesses have a holiday. >>>>> John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com>: >>>>>>> I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > I suspect you don't know what or when Ascension Day is ... You are right. My religious education in an elementary school run by the Anglican Church in Hong Kong is fading fast... >> Larger organizations in the US typically has some paid >> "personal days" so that people can use take them for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> The exchanges are closed. Most firms in the related >> businesses have a holiday. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > >>>>> John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com>: > >>>>>>> I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > school run by the Anglican Church in Hong Kong is fading > fast... It's observed 40 days after Easter. What can you have been thinking of? >>> OTOH Good Friday and Ascension Day are rarely holidays by >>> themselves, but the school board would try to schedule the 1-2 week [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You are right. My religious education in an elementary school run by > the Anglican Church in Hong Kong is fading fast... It's the day that everyone in Sunnydale High graduates, of course. > >> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > only take holidays at Easter every four years or so, when your “settled” > date just happens to correspond with the right lunar phase? We don't have Christmas only when there's a bright star in the east. It's like saying "I was born on a Wednesday, so I'll only celebrate my birthday when it falls on a Wednesday". -- Halmyre >>>>> Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, >>>>> and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > -- > Halmyre I suppose it all comes down to how much predictability each person likes. Some people like all their holidays to come at the same time each year, and others are happy to put up with Easter, for example, coming late some years because other years it comes nice and early, which makes a much-needed break in a long winter. I never did consider Easter to be necessarily a spring holiday, myself. Of course, people living in places where they already have public holidays in all three of the dreary months of January, February and March wouldn't greet an early Easter with as much enthusiasm as I do. And I know Easter doesn't occur in January or February, but they seem much longer than they are when Easter comes in the latter part of April; and slightly shorter than they are when I have a March Easter to look forward to. I want an official long holiday weekend in every single month, no exceptions. SignatureCheryl > >>>>> Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, > >>>>> and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > I want an official long holiday weekend in every single month, no > exceptions. I thought they should have used MLK Day to commemorate the March on Washington, rather than his birthday, since there are no holidays in August. Peter T. Daniels filted: >> I want an official long holiday weekend in every single month, no >> exceptions. > >I thought they should have used MLK Day to commemorate the March on >Washington, rather than his birthday, since there are no holidays in >August. I always thought it should be observed on the anniversary of his assassination, so I could get my birthday off every year.... I also plumped for rolling back "Presidents' Day" to the original "Washington's Birthday" and "Lincoln's Birthday", further suggesting that *every* president's birthday should be a holiday...(Polk and Harding screwed things up by having their birthdays on the same day of the year)...as luck would have it, at the time I made this suggestion, that still would have left us with no holidays in June (Bush Sr came along a year or two later)....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Peter T. Daniels filted: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > birthday should be a holiday...(Polk and Harding screwed things up by having > their birthdays on the same day of the year)...as luck would have it, at the Statistically, in a group of 30 random people, you should expect at least one pair to share a birthday. With a pool of 44, oughtn't there to be two shared birthdays, on average? > time I made this suggestion, that still would have left us with no holidays in > June (Bush Sr came along a year or two later)....r > > But, the whole point of Easter is that it has a full moon! You might as > > well scrap the whole thing otherwise. Or are you suggesting that we [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's like saying "I was born on a Wednesday, so I'll only celebrate my > birthday when it falls on a Wednesday". The reason I fix Christmas to a Sunday has been my observation that arranging a family Christmas is substantially more convenient when it falls on a weekend than in the middle of the week. Given that Christmas is the most important holiday in the year, should we not all get at least a 3-day weekend, which we have for lesser holidays? Andrew Usher >>> But, the whole point of Easter is that it has a full moon! You might as >>> well scrap the whole thing otherwise. Or are you suggesting that we [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Andrew Usher The thing is that depending on your job, local holidays (eg whether Boxing Day is included) and the fact that New Year's Day comes so closely after Christmas Day, judicious use of annual leave days can give much more than three days in a row off if Christmas Day itself is mid-week. I would have thought that the summer holidays were far more important, at least to families with school-aged children, and in the US, Thanksgiving has an astonishing degree of importance. SignatureCheryl >> The reason I fix Christmas to a Sunday has been my observation that >> arranging a family Christmas is substantially more convenient when it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > closely after Christmas Day, judicious use of annual leave days can give > much more than three days in a row off if Christmas Day itself is mid-week. For that and related reasons, many businesses in Australia close down in the week between Christmas and New Year. So many employees are missing that they might as well save their running costs. > I would have thought that the summer holidays were far more important Well, of course, and that's the whole point of Christmas. It would be no fun if you had it in the winter. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. In sci.physics Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > But, the whole point of Easter is that it has a full moon! You might as >> > well scrap the whole thing otherwise. Or are you suggesting that we [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Andrew Usher Less than around 30% of the world population cares about Christmas or Easter or think that "Christmas is the most important holiday in the year". SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote (19-02-2010 19:21): > In sci.physics Andrew Usher<k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Easter or think that "Christmas is the most important holiday in the > year". Well, but for those who don't it doesn't really matter one way or the other what day Christmas and Easter Sunday are, does it? So what relevance do they have for you to bring them along? Or was it just the desire to sound clever? > >> The reason I fix Christmas to a Sunday has been my observation that > >> arranging a family Christmas is substantially more convenient when it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > what day Christmas and Easter Sunday are, does it? So what relevance do they > have for you to bring them along? Or was it just the desire to sound clever? Right, and I figure that my calendar would be no worse than the present for those that don't. Indeed, I considered this problem purely as a logical one; as I've stated, I don't consider myself Christian, I adopted the Church calendar as a base only because it makes the problem more interesting. I didn't consider my calendar complete until I worked out my new leap year rule (Rule #3) - it not only ensures that both Christmas and Easter are within 7-day periods despite being a constant distance from each other and having leap day in between, it simultaneously causes there to be exactly 52 Sundays in every year if you take out Nov. 1 which is All Saints' day; this immediately allows te to draw up a permanent list of the Sundays in the year with their traditional Christian designations, and then follow the perpetual calendar. And I moved the start of the week numbering to August from Nov. 1 so that the academic year and the US football season would be on the fixed schedule, and I think there can be no objection to that. The holidays I consider are Christmas and Easter (and of course the Church festivals fixed to them, but hardly anyone cares anymore), and US Thanksgiving - but other civil holidays could easily be fixed to the same if they are now observed on a Monday, say, or otherwise not fixed to a particular date. Andrew Usher >>>> The reason I fix Christmas to a Sunday has been my observation that >>>> arranging a family Christmas is substantially more convenient when it [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Andrew Usher Which academic year are you considering? I can think of several variations - K-12 vs universities and colleges, to begin with, and there are even variations among the K-12 school years in different jurisdictions - and even within the same one, in places where some schools have a year-round schedule. I will confess to being totally indifferent to the US football schedule. In fact, I couldn't tell you what it is now, except for a vague impression that it occurs in the fall, or possibly winter. SignatureCheryl >>>>> The reason I fix Christmas to a Sunday has been my observation that >>>>> arranging a family Christmas is substantially more convenient when it [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > In fact, I couldn't tell you what it is now, except for a vague impression > that it occurs in the fall, or possibly winter. The USA doesn't have a football schedule. The rest of the world plays football, the USA calls that soccer and then plays it's own version of parochial handball. >>>>>> The reason I fix Christmas to a Sunday has been my observation that >>>>>> arranging a family Christmas is substantially more convenient when it [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > football, the USA calls that soccer and then plays it's own version of > parochial handball. 'Scuse me, what's rubbish about the rest of world playing that scoreless drama with a round ball? Footballs may be different sizes and weights and even the shape varies a bit, but they are basically ovoid. The other game is for kids in the street. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister filted: >> The USA doesn't have a football schedule. The rest of the world plays >> football, the USA calls that soccer and then plays it's own version of >> parochial handball. One expects such a reaction from someone who inserts an apostrophe into possessive "its".... >'Scuse me, what's rubbish about the rest of world playing that scoreless >drama with a round ball? Footballs may be different sizes and weights >and even the shape varies a bit, but they are basically ovoid. The other >game is for kids in the street. *Poor* kids...with foreign accents...and brown skin....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Robert Bannister filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > One expects such a reaction from someone who inserts an apostrophe into > possessive "its".... Oops... I forgot that is one possessive word that doesn't have an apostophe. My's mistake. What is "....", four thirds of an ellipsis ? >>'Scuse me, what's rubbish about the rest of world playing that scoreless >>drama with a round ball? Footballs may be different sizes and weights >>and even the shape varies a bit, but they are basically ovoid. The other >>game is for kids in the street. > > *Poor* kids...with foreign accents...and brown skin....r I don't know that word, what does "....r" mean? Androcles filted: >> Robert Bannister filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >My's mistake. >What is "....", four thirds of an ellipsis ? An ellipsis and a full stop.... >>>'Scuse me, what's rubbish about the rest of world playing that scoreless >>>drama with a round ball? Footballs may be different sizes and weights [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >I don't know that word, what does "....r" mean? An ellipsis and a full stop and the world's shortest meaningful .sig....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Androcles filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > An ellipsis and a full stop.... One expects such a reaction from one who concatenates a period with an ellipsis. I thought it might have been four quarter stops resulting from brake failure or break failure. >>>>'Scuse me, what's rubbish about the rest of world playing that scoreless >>>>drama with a round ball? Footballs may be different sizes and weights [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > An ellipsis and a full stop and the world's shortest meaningful .sig....r I don't know that word, what does ".sig." mean, Mr. ...r? Androcles filted: >> Androcles filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >I don't know that word, what does ".sig." mean, Mr. ...r? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.sig ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? <gracious courtesy returned> Androcles filted: ><gracious courtesy returned> You're in America now...we snip in this country.... We also don't play games with followups....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Androcles filted: >> >><gracious courtesy returned> > > You're in America now...we snip in this country.... You are in England now, we use commas in written English and play games with follow-ups. Only the parochial Americans and fuckwits hallucinate they are the whole world. > Androcles filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > We also don't play games with followups....r Hi R.H. You might find it interesting to visit this site: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#SpreadsheetLimit Given the cross-posting to sci.physics I think this must be the same Androcles. Signatureathel > Androcles filted: [socking the ball: a round] >>> *Poor* kids...with foreign accents...and brown skin....r >>> >> I don't know that word, what does "....r" mean? > > An ellipsis and a full stop and the world's shortest meaningful > .sig....r Nay, say I....i >> Robert Bannister filted: >>>> The USA doesn't have a football schedule. The rest of the world plays >>>> football, the USA calls that soccer and then plays it's own version of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Oops... I forgot that is one possessive word that doesn't have an apostophe. mine, yours, his, hers, its,ours, theirs. Not one possessive pronoun has an apostrophe. SignatureMichael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> This message contains at least 95% recycled bytes. >>"R H Draney" <dadoctah@spamcop.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Not one possessive pronoun has an apostrophe. One should be sure of one's facts before making such assertions. (Or should that be "ones"?) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Feeling good about government is like 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |looking on the bright side of any Palo Alto, CA 94304 |catastrophe. When you quit looking |on the bright side, the catastrophe kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |is still there. (650)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> "R H Draney" <dadoctah@spamcop.net> wrote in message >>>>>> The USA doesn't have a football schedule. The rest of the world [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > One should be sure of one's facts before making such assertions. (Or > should that be "ones"?) Just as long as you don't choose "his". SignatureJames > > mine, yours, his, hers, its,ours, theirs. > > > > Not one possessive pronoun has an apostrophe. > > One should be sure of one's facts before making such assertions. (Or > should that be "ones"?) 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective (the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. Andrew Usher >> > mine, yours, his, hers, its,ours, theirs. >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised > adjective (the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. Both Merriam-Webster and the OED appear to disagree with you. SignatureEvan 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. Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: >'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective >(the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. That's a matter of perception rather than fact. Most people's perception is different from yours, I suspect. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: > >'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective > >(the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. > > That's a matter of perception rather than fact. Most people's perception > is different from yours, I suspect. Mine is based on logic. One declines like a noun, not a pronoun, and is clearly identical to the number one, which is a noun (adjective), not a pronoun. Andrew Usher >> Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: >>> 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is clearly identical to the number one, which is a noun (adjective), > not a pronoun. Here the OED disagrees with you. SignatureJames > > Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com>: > > >'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is clearly identical to the number one, which is a noun (adjective), > not a pronoun. It's already been noted that this thread is widely crossposted. Perhaps the mathematicians and physicists should leave the linguistics to the linguists. > > > Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com>: > > > >'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Perhaps the mathematicians and physicists should leave the linguistics > to the linguists. I have as much ability to analyse language as any of your people! Andrew Usher > > > > Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com>: > > > > >'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I have as much ability to analyse language as any of your people! Your ignorance is very impressive. I don't know whether you come from sci.physics or sci.math, but would you accept someone's assertion who claimed they had as much ability to do math or to do physics as do you with your (presumed) training in the field? >>>> Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com>: >>>>> 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I have as much ability to analyse language as any of your people! "your people"? SignatureJames > >>>> Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com>: > >>>>> 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > "your people"? As in, "Have your people get in touch with my people!" Them math or physics guys must live pretty high on the hog. >>>>>> Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com>: >>>>>>> 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > As in, "Have your people get in touch with my people!" Them math or > physics guys must live pretty high on the hog. Ah, I thought it was some ethnic slur. SignatureJames > Perhaps the mathematicians and physicists should leave the linguistics > to the linguists. It'll never get finished at that rate. >> > mine, yours, his, hers, its,ours, theirs. >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective >(the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. A propronoun? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> mine, yours, his, hers, its,ours, theirs. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Andrew Usher Are you positive it isn't related to French "on" (as opposed to French "un")? SignatureRob Bannister > > 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective > > (the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. > > Are you positive it isn't related to French "on" (as opposed to French > "un")? Well, it certainly could be, and that is the usual derivation given, although I don't think there's any direct proof. Anglo-French 'on' and Middle English 'one' would be very close in pronunciation, both being some variant of [On]. But still, I think if that was the origin it was assimilated into English as if it were the number one. Andrew Usher [>> Andrew Usher:] >>> 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised >>> adjective (the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > if that was the origin it was assimilated into English as if it > were the number one. That's a point, actually. The idiosyncratic pronunciation of "one" / wVn/ is supposed to be a dialectal intrusion, isn't it? I remember a passage in _Tom Brown's School Days_ about the name of a local feature called "the Blowing Stone" being pronounced the "blawing stwun"*. The pronoun would presumably not share that pronunciation if many people had not assimilated it to the number. *Yes, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_Stone >>> 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective >>> (the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Andrew Usher The equivalent in other Germanic languages is not the same as their word for the number "one". SignatureRob Bannister >>>> 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised >>>> adjective (the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The equivalent in other Germanic languages is not the same as their > word for the number "one". Some languages use the word for "man", e.g. German and French. Swedish has "man", but the object form is "en" and the possessive is "ens", both from the word for the number one. SignatureJames James Hogg: >>>>> 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised >>>>> adjective (the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Swedish has "man", but the object form is "en" and the possessive is > "ens", both from the word for the number one. In Norwegian both 'en' and 'man' are allowed as subject, but only 'en' as object. The possessive 'ens' exists, but it's rare since the sort of sentence that would require it is rare. The distribution of ordinary and reflexive possessives is ruled by the subject of the (spoken or epenthetic) verb of the sentence that the possessive pronoun is part of. (If the possessive points to the (immediate) subject the reflexive (sin/si/sitt/sine) is used, if it points elsewhere it's an ordinary 3p possessive.) SignatureTrond Engen Michael Stemper: > Not one possessive pronoun has an apostrophe. A friend of mine's apostrophes are possessed. Mine aren't. SignatureJohn >>> Robert Bannister filted: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > mine, yours, his, "Michael Stemper's blunder" is a contraction of "Michael Stemper, his blunder". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraction : a shortening of a word, syllable, or word group by omission of a sound or letter; > > In article <%GIfn.45264$lB6.23...@newsfe16.ams2>, "Androcles" > > <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_u> writes: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "Michael Stemper's blunder" is a contraction of "Michael Stemper, his > blunder". No, it is not. Where did you learn your historical linguistics? > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraction > : a shortening of a word, syllable, or word group by omission of a sound or > letter;- > > "Michael Stemper" <mstem...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Where did you learn your historical linguistics? Fine, there are cross-posted groups here. Given that or no, and forgetting History, for that is the one thing that History's good for, what makes you pretend Androcles is an expert, or even, merely learned, in hystericle (my pronunciation of your historical) linguistics?! The gravity of your presumptuous expectation -- handwritten or otherwise, for the blind or no -- defies ... err ... physics -- mathematical or otherwise. When one writes on Usenet, or some WWW, one has to allow for that "deaf, dumb, and blind kid" playing Who's Pinball. It's only considerate, in any Language. > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraction > > : a shortening of a word, syllable, or word group by omission of a sound or > > letter;- Enjo(y)... -- Mahipal On Feb 22, 2:20 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote: > On Feb 22, 2:12 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Where did you learn your historical linguistics? Fine, there are cross-posted groups here. Given that or no, and forgetting History, for that is the one thing that History's good for, what makes you pretend Androcles is an expert, or even, merely learned, in hystericle (my pronunciation of your historical) linguistics?! The gravity of your presumptuous expectation -- handwritten or otherwise, for the blind or no -- defies ... err ... physics -- mathematical or otherwise. When one writes on Usenet, or some WWW, one has to allow for that "deaf, dumb, and blind kid" playing Who's Pinball. It's only considerate, in any Language. > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraction > > : a shortening of a word, syllable, or word group by omission of a sound > > or > > letter;- Enjo(y)... -- Mahipal =============================================== "Peter T. Daniels' trolling" is a contraction of "Peter T. Daniels, his trolling". The stupid bastard can whine "No, it is not" and stamp his feet and scream 'til he's blue in the face, he's still killfiled. On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:46:39 -0000, Androcles <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote in <news:0AFgn.19343$X_6.15024@newsfe22.ams2> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > "Peter T. Daniels' trolling" is a contraction of "Peter T. > Daniels, his trolling". The stupid bastard can whine "No, > it is not" and stamp his feet and scream 'til he's blue > in the face, he's still killfiled. He's also still right. Brian of course, "Brian's trolling" is an apostrophization of "Brian, *his* trolling;" did you think that it was "Brian is trolling, again," and again? --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com [answer directed to AUE only] ° >>>> Robert Bannister filted: >>>>>> The USA doesn't have a football schedule. The rest of the world >>>>>> plays football, the USA calls that soccer and then plays it's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "Michael Stemper's blunder" is a contraction of "Michael Stemper, his > blunder". No. See http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwheret.html, especially the /Other Comments/ part. Read also the first paragraph at http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/apostrophes1.html > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraction > a shortening of a word, syllable, or word group by omission of a > sound or letter; SignatureSkitt (AmE) > "Michael Stemper's blunder" is a contraction of "Michael Stemper, his > blunder". You see the latter construction in some C.17 English, but it was based on a folk etymology or hypercorrection (or a combination of the two) of "Michael Stemper's blunder". SignatureThe generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. [Robert R. Coveyou] > > "Michael Stemper's blunder" is a contraction of "Michael Stemper, his > > blunder". > > You see the latter construction in some C.17 English, but it was based > on a folk etymology or hypercorrection (or a combination of the two) > of "Michael Stemper's blunder". Actually, I believe, the compound genitive is a common Germanic feature that's fallen out of use in English. Andrew Usher On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:17:09 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in <news:bc01d40d-7791-4df0-9e9e-9bda44517cc9@u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> "Michael Stemper's blunder" is a contraction of "Michael >>> Stemper, his blunder". >> You see the latter construction in some C.17 English, but >> it was based on a folk etymology or hypercorrection (or >> a combination of the two) of "Michael Stemper's >> blunder". > Actually, I believe, the compound genitive is a common > Germanic feature that's fallen out of use in English. Constructions unambiguously of the type 'the king his bed' only appear in English in the late 16th century. They probably resulted from misanalysis of 'the kingis bed' (= modern 'the king's bed') as 'the king 'is bed' (= 'the king his bed'). They did not survive the Early Modern period. Brian > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:17:09 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher > <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > modern 'the king's bed') as 'the king 'is bed' (= 'the king > his bed'). They did not survive the Early Modern period. Also, it's hard to imagine that the related form in, say, Icelandic "Njáls saga", is a contraction of "his". SignatureJames >> Constructions unambiguously of the type 'the king his bed' >> only appear in English in the late 16th century. They [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Also, it's hard to imagine that the related form in, say, Icelandic > "Njáls saga", is a contraction of "his". AIUI, "Njáls saga" is short for "Brennu-Njáls saga". SignatureMathematiker sind wie Franzosen: Was man ihnen auch sagt, übersetzen sie in ihre eigene Sprache, so daß unverzüglich etwas völlig anderes daraus wird. [Goethe] >>> Constructions unambiguously of the type 'the king his bed' >>> only appear in English in the late 16th century. They [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > AIUI, "Njáls saga" is short for "Brennu-Njáls saga". It goes under both titles, plus a third, just "Njála". SignatureJames James Hogg skrev: >> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:17:09 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher >> <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Also, it's hard to imagine that the related form in, say, Icelandic > "Njáls saga", is a contraction of "his". There's no question that the English genitive is inherited. And the origin of 'the king his bed' from false analysis is plausible. But still: Oddly enough 'the king his bed' does seem to coincide with the development of similar constructions in the Germanic dialects around the North Sea: N. German: Der König sein Bett* Jutlandish: Kongen hans seng* W. Norw.: Kongen si seng * vel sim. -- I can't take exact forms from the top of my head It doesn't have to mean a thing, but it may also be an areally shared development of a post-case-system genitive. SignatureTrond Engen > James Hogg skrev: >>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:17:09 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > N. German: Der König sein Bett* I've heard it well south of N. German. > Jutlandish: Kongen hans seng* > W. Norw.: Kongen si seng [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It doesn't have to mean a thing, but it may also be an areally shared > development of a post-case-system genitive. And in English there was a feminine equivalent, e.g. in a 1435 manuscript of Chaucer: "Here begynnyt the wyf of bathe hire tale" and in the 1546 State Papers: "Elizabeth Holland her howse". SignatureJames James Hogg filted: >And in English there was a feminine equivalent, e.g. in a 1435 >manuscript of Chaucer: "Here begynnyt the wyf of bathe hire tale" and in >the 1546 State Papers: "Elizabeth Holland her howse". I'm not at all persuaded that the Canterbury quote is of the same form...it's more like "There placed he a row of little stakes"....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > James Hogg filted: >> And in English there was a feminine equivalent, e.g. in a 1435 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm not at all persuaded that the Canterbury quote is of the same form...it's > more like "There placed he a row of little stakes"....r I agree it could be read like that. The careless scribe forgot to italicise the title. SignatureJames > And in English there was a feminine equivalent, e.g. in a 1435 > manuscript of Chaucer: "Here begynnyt the wyf of bathe hire tale" and in > the 1546 State Papers: "Elizabeth Holland her howse". Nevertheless, that didn't beget a modern genitive "Elizabeth Holland'r house". SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. [sci.lang dropped] James Hogg: > > And in English there was a feminine equivalent, e.g. in a 1435 > > manuscript of Chaucer: "Here begynnyt the wyf of bathe hire tale" and in > > the 1546 State Papers: "Elizabeth Holland her howse". Peter Moylan: > Nevertheless, that didn't beget a modern genitive "Elizabeth Holland'r > house". But Xaviera Holland'r, on the other hand... :-) SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "This one isn't close. It's not even close to msb@vex.net | being close." --Adam Beneschan Trond Engen (in sci.lang): > N. German: Der König sein Bett* Dem König sein Bett. SignatureMy favourite # 51: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOnFKLvonQw> My favourite # 44: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkvCDCOGzGc> > James Hogg skrev: >>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:17:09 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > It doesn't have to mean a thing, but it may also be an areally shared > development of a post-case-system genitive. Where it falls down is that there is no feminine genitive like "Die Königin ihr Bett". I'm sure I've heard the possessor in the Dative somewhere in Germany along the lines of "Meinem Bruder seine Frau". SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister (in sci.lang): > Where it falls down is that there is no feminine genitive like "Die > Königin ihr Bett". It's "Der Königin ihr Bett". "Der Königin" is _Dative. > I'm sure I've heard the possessor in the Dative > somewhere in Germany along the lines of "Meinem Bruder seine Frau". It is always Dative. *"Der König sein Bett" does not exist. Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 64: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxZuq57_bYM> My favourite # 45: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XE2N4mxeRw> >>> Robert Bannister filted: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Not one possessive pronoun has an apostrophe. One's SignatureRob Bannister Michael Stemper filted: >mine, yours, his, hers, its,ours, theirs. > >Not one possessive pronoun has an apostrophe. That might just be somebody's opinion....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > Michael Stemper filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That might just be somebody's opinion....r Pigs might fly; but then they'd be pigeons. > Robert Bannister filted: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > One expects such a reaction from someone who inserts an apostrophe into > possessive "its".... One doesn't, really; the greengroce'rs apostrophe is more a feature of Britland than USland. > >'Scuse me, what's rubbish about the rest of world playing that scoreless > >drama with a round ball? Footballs may be different sizes and weights > >and even the shape varies a bit, but they are basically ovoid. The other > >game is for kids in the street. > > *Poor* kids...with foreign accents...and brown skin....r > The USA doesn't have a football schedule. The rest of the world plays > football, the USA calls that soccer and then plays it's own version of > parochial handball. Oh, that's a clever insight. Andrew Usher >>>>> The reason I fix Christmas to a Sunday has been my observation that >>>>> arranging a family Christmas is substantially more convenient when it [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > In fact, I couldn't tell you what it is now, except for a vague > impression that it occurs in the fall, or possibly winter. And have you taken the southern hemisphere into consideration? Our scholastic year is quite different. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> The reason I fix Christmas to a Sunday has been my observation that >>>> arranging a family Christmas is substantially more convenient when [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Andrew Usher There have of course been many "serious" attempts at calendar reform, there were even societies devoted to it that published their own magazines. It all sounds wonderful if you are living in the USA, but how are you going to get other countries with their own agendas (such as real football--what you dismiss as "soccer") to go along with it? It's hard enough now getting different (northern) countries to agree on the dates for putting clocks forward or back for Daylight Savings--a nightmare for airline schedulers. How much worse will it be when different countries have their own calendars? Whatever happened to that good old American slogan, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."? SignatureMike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) > It all sounds wonderful if you are living in the USA, but how are > you going to get other countries with their own agendas (such as > real football--what you dismiss as "soccer") Your "real" football, association football, which we (and others) call by the English nickname of "soccer", is just one football code, and only dates back to 1863 (based on earlier sets of rules going back to the 1840s), with rules that included If a player makes a fair catch, he shall be entitled to a free kick, providing he claims it by making a mark with his heel at once; and in order to take such kick he may go back as far as he pleases, and no player on the opposite side shall advance beyond his mark until he has kicked. the committee having decided, after much debate to drop IX. A player shall be entitled to run with the ball towards his adversaries' goal if he makes a fair catch, or catches the ball on the first bound; but in case of a fair catch, if he makes his mark he shall not run. X. If any player shall run with the ball towards his adversaries' goal, any player on the opposite side shall be at liberty to charge, hold, trip or hack him, or to wrest the ball from him, but no player shall be held and hacked at the same time. (the latter having been voted out over the objection of one member who said "hacking is the true football"). According to the Wikipedia article on "Football", Australian Rules football dates back a few years earlier, to the 1850s. Rugby was first played in the 1820s and first codified in 1871. American football appears to have been codified in the 1870s, Canadian football in the 1860s or so, and Gaelic football in the 1880s. They all derived from English games that involved kicking the ball, catching the ball, and (often) running with the ball, batting the ball, and throwing the ball. All of the codes are pretty much about as old (and all have changed a lot since that time). None is more "real" than any other. And, by and large, all are called (in English) "football" in the places where they're the most popular code. And, I believe that your "real football" is "soccer" most of the places where it isn't the most popular (or by people for whom it isn't). SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The vast majority of humans have 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |more than the average number of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |legs. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > And I moved the start of the week numbering to August from Nov. 1 so > that the academic year and the US football season would be on the > fixed schedule, and I think there can be no objection to that. Aha. Now I understand an aspect of your proposal that hadn't been clear to me. You're proposing different calendars for different countries, right? An interesting idea. While you're at it, though, why not have the academic year line up with the calendar year, the way we do it here? Making an academic year straddle two calendar years sounds just plain silly. True, there are good historical reasons for it, but if you're going to modify the calendar anyway you might as well fix the glaring problems too. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > > And I moved the start of the week numbering to August from Nov. 1 so > > that the academic year and the US football season would be on the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to me. You're proposing different calendars for different countries, > right? An interesting idea. I wasn't actually thinking that way. Doesn't everyone start the academic year in the fall, between late August and early October? I guess you don't down there; well, I'd have no problem with you using a different week numbering if necessary, but it would probably be best to just extend mine later than August, and it keeps the perfect link with the Church calendar as long as you end before All Saints'. In fact that is nothing more than using my original idea of using Nov. 1 as the start. > While you're at it, though, why not have the academic year line up with > the calendar year, the way we do it here? Making an academic year > straddle two calendar years sounds just plain silly. Presumably this is only done in the Southern Hemisphere. > True, there are > good historical reasons for it, but if you're going to modify the > calendar anyway you might as well fix the glaring problems too. That's a different issue, though. Andrew Usher >>> And I moved the start of the week numbering to August from Nov. 1 so >>> that the academic year and the US football season would be on the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Presumably this is only done in the Southern Hemisphere. Well, no. Most places I'm familiar with have the academic year run from, say, September 2009 to June 2010, thus straddling two academic years. That's just an example, I know perfectly well that there are lots of other starting and ending dates, even in the northern hemisphere, and even have to deal with stuff that has to be reported by calendar year but involves people from at least two groups using two different academic years. Three, sometimes, and four including people who aren't primarily working the academic year. SignatureCheryl > >> While you're at it, though, why not have the academic year line up with > >> the calendar year, the way we do it here? Making an academic year [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, no. Most places I'm familiar with have the academic year run from, > say, September 2009 to June 2010, thus straddling two academic years. Do you live in the Southern Hemisphere? Judging by your address, you don't. Why the f.ck do women never f.cking read??? Andrew Usher >>>> While you're at it, though, why not have the academic year line >>>> up with the calendar year, the way we do it here? Making an [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Why the f.ck do women never f.cking read??? Can I just say a word here for the importance of intelligent f.cking snippage? >>>>> While you're at it, though, why not have the academic year line >>>>> up with the calendar year, the way we do it here? Making an [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Can I just say a word here for the importance of intelligent f.cking > snippage? One could wish that some people's parents had seen the importance of intelligent f.cking. SignatureMike. >>>>>> While you're at it, though, why not have the academic year line >>>>>> up with the calendar year, the way we do it here? Making an [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > One could wish that some people's parents had seen the importance of > intelligent f.cking. I may have been with you in thought. Intelligent prophylactic snippage of somebody's wedding tackle. [aue only] >>>>>>> While you're at it, though, why not have the academic year line >>>>>>> up with the calendar year, the way we do it here? Making an [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I may have been with you in thought. Intelligent prophylactic > snippage of somebody's wedding tackle. How odd of God to Ussher in Six thousand years' ancestral sin, And then compound that first mistake With Armagh's latter-day namesake. SignatureJames James Hogg filted: >[aue only] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >And then compound that first mistake >With Armagh's latter-day namesake. Piet Hein lives!...r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > >>>> While you're at it, though, why not have the academic year line > >>>> up with the calendar year, the way we do it here? Making an [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Can I just say a word here for the importance of intelligent f.cking > snippage? I retained exactly what what relevant to my point - that I clearly said 'Southern Hemisphere', and she responded as if she didn't see it. Andrew Usher >>>>>> While you're at it, though, why not have the academic year line >>>>>> up with the calendar year, the way we do it here? Making an [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > said 'Southern Hemisphere', and she responded as if she didn't see > it. You posted lines without attribution. You've done it again here. > > >> While you're at it, though, why not have the academic year line up with > > >> the calendar year, the way we do it here? Making an academic year [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Do you live in the Southern Hemisphere? Judging by your address, you > don't. The following Wikipedia link gives the academic terms for many nations around the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_term I find the dates of some of the Asian countries interesting: "In Japan, almost all schools run a three-term school year (trimester system), and most universities and colleges have a semester system. Most schools with a trimester system have a first term from April 1 to mid-July. The exact date of the beginning of the summer break and its duration vary across regions, but commonly the break lasts for about one or two months. The break originated to avoid the heat in summer, so elementary, middle, and high schools in Hokkaidō and Nagano Prefecture tend to have a shorter summer break than the rest of schools in Japan. A second term lasts from early September to late December with a winter break at the end of the year. The term is followed by a third term from early January to early March and a brief spring break lasting several weeks. The graduation ceremony occurs in March, and the enrollment ceremony in early April." So even though the summer break in Japan occurs at around the same time as in Europe, the actual school year (i.e., when students advance one grade) starts April 1st, not September. India also differs from most northern hemisphere nations: "In elementary and high school, the school year is usually from June to April, while in Universities it is from August to April." > Why the f.ck do women never f.cking read??? > > Andrew Usher >So even though the summer break in Japan occurs at around the >same time as in Europe, the actual school year (i.e., when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >from June to April, while in Universities it is from August >to April." One of the main reasons for the timing of the summer school break in the USA was the once largely agrarian society of family farms that needed the kids available to work in the fields during the growing season. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:30:28 -0800 (PST), Transfer Principle > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that needed the kids available to work in the fields during the > growing season. Even within a given state, school schedules often vary based on local agrarian needs. Like many schools in potato-farming regions of Maine, this one starts school a week earlier than most of the state and takes a week off in October for the potato harvest: http://www.sad32.org/calendar.html Oct. 5-9 Harvest Break <snip> >Even within a given state, school schedules often vary based on local >agrarian needs. I read that as "local asparagus needs", something I must not be getting enough of. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE In sci.physics António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote (19-02-2010 19:21): >> In sci.physics Andrew Usher<k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > what day Christmas and Easter Sunday are, does it? So what relevance do they > have for you to bring them along? Or was it just the desire to sound clever? That a calendar serves a purpose beyond keeping track of regional, ethnic, or religious "celebrations" of one small group. And trying to come up with a new calendar fixating on Christmas is about as logical as fixating on Waitangi Day. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Halmyre wrote (19-02-2010 17:52): >>> I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's like saying "I was born on a Wednesday, so I'll only celebrate my > birthday when it falls on a Wednesday". Christmas is a feast that was established late, based on arbitrary convention, and of relatively minor religious standing (the feast, not the event it commemorates). Easter is the central feast of Christianity, would be an end in itself if nothing else, and of which all the particulars have the highest religious significance. (Regardless of whatever pagan festivals coincide with it in date or outward meaning.) Chocolate bunnies and eggs, you can put them everywhere you like, but that's not Easter. On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:38:08 +0000, António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt> wrote in <news:hlmpb4$c42$1@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > Chocolate bunnies and eggs, you can put them everywhere > you like, but that's not Easter. For me, growing up, that was exactly Easter. It was a minor holiday, along with Thanksgiving and Hallowe'en; the major holiday was Christmas. Brian > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:38:08 +0000, António Marques > <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > holiday, along with Thanksgiving and Hallowe'en; the major > holiday was Christmas. Well, those holidays aren't organised by people who are still growing up. On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:28:27 -0800 (PST), António Marques <entonio@gmail.com> wrote in <news:3f5cc21c-5e58-47e9-8715-9de5097afc15@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:38:08 +0000, António Marques >> <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote in >> <news:hlmpb4$c42$1@news.eternal-september.org> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> [...] >>> Chocolate bunnies and eggs, you can put them everywhere >>> you like, but that's not Easter. >> For me, growing up, that was exactly Easter. It was a minor >> holiday, along with Thanksgiving and Hallowe'en; the major >> holiday was Christmas. > Well, those holidays aren't organised by people who are > still growing up. From which you can safely infer that my experience reflects my parents' view of the matter. Brian > Easter is the central feast of Christianity, would be an end in itself if > nothing else, and of which all the particulars have the highest religious > significance. (Regardless of whatever pagan festivals coincide with it in > date or outward meaning.) I agree, but how does that mean we must celebrate Easter at the full moon? (which the Orthodox don't, anyway) Andrew Usher >> Easter is the central feast of Christianity, would be an end in >> itself if nothing else, and of which all the particulars have the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Andrew Usher Come on, the answer to a question about why a particular religious festival must be celebrated on a day fixed by the phases of the Moon is, "Because". So unless you plan to enforce an order to the Catholic Church to abandon a practice that is central to their rituals and celebrations, you are on a hiding to nothing. Possibly you could have a "civil" calendar and leave the Gregorian calendar for "ritual" use only, the way the Orthodox calendar is used, but the point about the way in which the whole world adopted the Gregorian calendar for civil purposes, even if they were Buddhists or Jews or Shinto or Tao or Atheist, is that it led to standardization and a common agreement about dates for civil and international matters. SignatureMike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) > > I agree, but how does that mean we must celebrate Easter at the full > > moon? (which the Orthodox don't, anyway) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > practice that is central to their rituals and celebrations, you are on a > hiding to nothing. The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week would be acceptable. > Possibly you could have a "civil" calendar and leave the Gregorian calendar > for "ritual" use only, the way the Orthodox calendar is used, but the point > about the way in which the whole world adopted the Gregorian calendar for > civil purposes, even if they were Buddhists or Jews or Shinto or Tao or > Atheist, is that it led to standardization and a common agreement about > dates for civil and international matters. Yes, and that is why I propose no change in actual day numbering, just in Christmas and Easter and perhaps other holidays and scheduled dates, and finally in a standard week numbering starting in August. Andrew Usher > > > I agree, but how does that mean we must celebrate Easter at the full > > > moon? (which the Orthodox don't, anyway) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week > would be acceptable. "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. (It took almost 200 years to get their newfangled calendar accepted just throughout Western Europe, and it took the Russian Revolution to get it used across the East.) > > Possibly you could have a "civil" calendar and leave the Gregorian calendar > > for "ritual" use only, the way the Orthodox calendar is used, but the point [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > in Christmas and Easter and perhaps other holidays and scheduled > dates, and finally in a standard week numbering starting in August. > > The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked > > to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week > > would be acceptable. > > "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) > hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to exactly one organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Also, it's been longer than half a millennium if one includes the East. > (It > took almost 200 years to get their newfangled calendar accepted just > throughout Western Europe, and it took the Russian Revolution to get > it used across the East.) Nowadays, though, globalisation would be much faster. AndrewUsher > > > The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked > > > to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Also, it's been > longer than half a millennium if one includes the East. One doesn't "include the East." One has to wonder what knowledge you have of the Eastern churches. Are you by any chance one of those crackpots who want the Mass peformed in Latin, who think Jesus decreed that clergy be celibate, and the congeries of heterodox beliefs that go along with those two? > > (It > > took almost 200 years to get their newfangled calendar accepted just > > throughout Western Europe, and it took the Russian Revolution to get > > it used across the East.) > > Nowadays, though, globalisation would be much faster. > > > > The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked > > > > to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > peformed in Latin, who think Jesus decreed that clergy be celibate, > and the congeries of heterodox beliefs that go along with those two? speaking of Eastern Churches, Easter is more important in Eastern Churches. significantly, modern Turkish borrows "Easter" from Greek (Paskalya) and "Christmass" from French (Noel). also Monophysite Churches (Armenian Orthodox, Jacobite Syrian, Coptic) reject Dec. 25 as the date of Christmass. > > > (It > > > took almost 200 years to get their newfangled calendar accepted just > > > throughout Western Europe, and it took the Russian Revolution to get > > > it used across the East.) > > > Nowadays, though, globalisation would be much faster. Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 11:17): > speaking of Eastern Churches, Easter is more important in Eastern > Churches. significantly, modern Turkish borrows "Easter" from Greek > (Paskalya) and "Christmass" from French (Noel). What you certainly mean is that the Middle East isn't as dechristianised as the US. > also Monophysite Churches (Armenian Orthodox, Jacobite Syrian, Coptic) > reject Dec. 25 as the date of Christmass. It's miaphysite! Again, the date of Christmas isn't religiously significant, other than being at that time of the year. The fact that different churches use different dates doesn't mean they are in disagreement (as your 'reject' implies), any more than having different feast days for the same saint. The only religiously significant dates are those of the moveabe cycle. Over which there isn't much disagreement other than what calendar to use. > Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 11:17): > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It's miaphysite! no, it's Monophysite (Mono, from one, Christ having only a divine nature). > Again, the date of Christmas isn't religiously significant, other than being > at that time of the year. The fact that different churches use different > dates doesn't mean they are in disagreement (as your 'reject' implies), any IIRC they considered Dec. 25 as having pagan implications. > more than having different feast days for the same saint. > The only religiously significant dates are those of the moveabe cycle. Over > which there isn't much disagreement other than what calendar to use. Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 15:01): >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 11:17): >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > no, it's Monophysite (Mono, from one, Christ having only a divine > nature). No, it's miaphysite! (Mia, united) Christ having only a divine nature (monophysitism) is a heresy to all of Latins, Greeks, Armenians, Jacobites, Copts and Assyrians. >> Again, the date of Christmas isn't religiously significant, other than being >> at that time of the year. The fact that different churches use different >> dates doesn't mean they are in disagreement (as your 'reject' implies), any > > IIRC they considered Dec. 25 as having pagan implications. Only the Armenians use a different date, does that mean that the Copts, who they are in communion with, are under pagan influence? Either way, it's not a religiously signfiicant matter, just a convention. >> more than having different feast days for the same saint. >> The only religiously significant dates are those of the moveabe cycle. Over >> which there isn't much disagreement other than what calendar to use. > Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 15:01): > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Only the Armenians use a different date, does that mean that the Copts, who > they are in communion with, are under pagan influence? Either way, it's not OK, maybe it's just the Armenians and the Copts just due to calendar, but the Armenians did object (better word?) to Dec. 25. I know very well in Turkey two different Christmas greetings (it's not a holiday there) are issued by government. > a religiously signfiicant matter, just a convention. > > >> more than having different feast days for the same saint. > >> The only religiously significant dates are those of the moveabe cycle. Over > >> which there isn't much disagreement other than what calendar to use. > - Show quoted text - > > Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 15:01): > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > OK, maybe it's just the Armenians and the Copts just due to calendar, anyway, the Copts use a wholly different calendar altogether, with different months (the ancient Egyptian ones) and a different era (that of Diolectian, christianized as the "Era of the Martyrs"). at nay rate, their observance of Christmas falls in January as well. > but the Armenians did object (better word?) to Dec. 25. I know very > well in Turkey two different Christmas greetings (it's not a holiday [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > >> The only religiously significant dates are those of the moveabe cycle. Over > > >> which there isn't much disagreement other than what calendar to use. Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 17:15): >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 15:01): >>>> Again, the date of Christmas isn't religiously significant, other [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > in Turkey two different Christmas greetings (it's not a holiday there) > are issued by government. What I'm saying here is that such matters as the date of Christmas aren't religiously significant but arbitrary conventions (as opposed to Easter, which may be a convention but not an arbitrary one). For all I know a church could be considered orthodox while not even celebrating Christmas. 'Reject' in religious context usually applies to religiously significant things. (Now of course Christmas is significant for Christians, it's the date that isn't.) > > Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 11:17): > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > no, it's Monophysite (Mono, from one, Christ having only a divine > nature). OK. Miaphysite is the term the Churches themselves use, but the other Churches characterise them as Monophysites, as does most of the scholarly historical literature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miaphysitism Miaphysitism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Miaphysitism (sometimes called henophysitism) is a Christological formula of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and of the various churches adhering to the "Seven Ecumenical Councils" (as found in Capitula 8 of the Second Council of Constantinople). Miaphysitism holds that in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one "nature" ("physis"), the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration. Historically, Chalcedonian Christians have considered Miaphysitism in general to be amenable to an orthodox interpretation, but they have nevertheless perceived the Miaphysitism of the Non-Chalcedonians to be a form of Monophysitism. The Oriental Orthodox Churches themselves reject this characterization.[1] 1^ Nine Saints Ethiopian Orthodox Monastery: Monophysitism and Dyophysitism http://www.ninesaintsethiopianorthodoxmonastery.org/id21.html ... The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church belongs to the group of Orthodox Churches wrongly termed "Monophysite" but which prefer the epithet "Non-Chalcedonian". The other members of this family are the Coptic, Armenian, Syrian and Indian Churches. Together with the Roman Catholic Church and the Byzantine Orthodox Churches they comprised the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church for four centuries until the division arose on account of the Greek-Roman Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. which insisted that Christ had the two natures of Humanity and Divinity. > > Again, the date of Christmas isn't religiously significant, other than being > > at that time of the year. The fact that different churches use different [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The only religiously significant dates are those of the moveabe cycle. Over > > which there isn't much disagreement other than what calendar to use. Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 17:03): >>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 11:17): >>>> also Monophysite Churches (Armenian Orthodox, Jacobite Syrian, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Churches characterise them as Monophysites, as does most of the scholarly > historical literature. Nowadays only when being ignorant (in which case such literature probably isn't the best source of knowledge) or deliberately offensive. To be clear: the 3rd-4th century church met a serious christological problem. First some said Christ had two independent, orthogonal natures ('Nestorianism'). That was considered heretical. Then some went to the opposite and said Christ had only one nature (monophysitism). That was considered heretical as well. Orthodoxy always maintained that Christ had two natures, 'united but not confused'. 'Miaphysitism' is orthodox; in fact, the Roman or the Greek church are just as miaphysite. The actual reasons for schism were political, as ever: - First, the Assyrian Church was connotated with Nestorius, though it never actually followed the heretical parts of Nestorius's doctrine. More importantly, the ACE belonged to Persia and India afterwards, so contact was broken off by simple geographic distance. - Later on, the Copts et al were connotated with monophysitism, though they never actually were monophysites. More importantly, Alexandria and other peripherial parts of the Eastern Empire resented the dominance of the Greeks. Orthodoxy is wider than it may seem. Nestorianism and monophysitism are in fact unorthodox, but within orthodoxy it's possible to put the emphasis on different sides of the question. In fact, Nestorianism was orthodox in intent, if not in formulation, and miaphysitism is merely a reaction against Nestorianism. Not wholly dissimilarly, the filioque clause was first inserted into the Creed in Hispania not because of any wish to distort orthodoxy but as an orthodox clarification against Arianism. One needs to know the historical background and intent before knowing how to interpret such things. Of course, not all people in all sides necessarily knew/know their own doctrine. There's a thing called the 'us v. them' mentality. > Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 17:03): >>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 11:17): [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Nowadays only when being ignorant (in which case such literature probably > isn't the best source of knowledge) or deliberately offensive. It is not clear that "monophysite" [I prefer lowercase] is offensive. But then, I am not a member of any of the non- Calcedon churches. As you yourself have noted, the difference between "Monophysite" and "Miaphysite" is more political than philosophical. Miaphysitism has no common doctrine regarding how the two natures of Christ are reconciled/combined, or how it differs from the "hypostatic union" model of the Chatholics (Calcedon). Thus, from a philosophical point of view, Miaphylitism is just a blanket name of monophysitic formulation(s) that have not explicitly condemned. The post- Calcedon emergence of Monothelitism was a testament to the unresolved issues between the dyophylitic nature of the Catholics and the monophylitic nature of non-Calcedons. (More below). Actually, for many members of the non-Calcedon churches, not only they are monophylites, the Catholics have been monophylites all along, just using different words! > To be clear: the 3rd-4th century church met a serious christological > problem. First some said Christ had two independent, orthogonal natures [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > had two natures, 'united but not confused'. 'Miaphysitism' is orthodox; > in fact, the Roman or the Greek church are just as miaphysite. Perhaps, but they are formally dyophysitic (as is Nestorianism) though with "hypostatic union". To be exact: Nestorianism: 1 person (Gr prosopon), 2 hypostases, 2 natures (Gr physis) Catholicism (Calcedon): 1 person, 1 hypostasis, 2 natures Miaphysitism: 1 person, 1 hypostasis, 1 "composite?" nature Monophysitism: 1 person, 1 hypostasis, 1 nature (Of course, it was the Catholics who defined what "hypostasis" mean.) There are three main varieties of Monophysitism: Eutychianism: human nature dissolved into divine nature Apollinarism: human soul with divine mind/spirit (Gr logos/nous) Monotheletism: the 2 natures act with 1 will (Gr thelein) and through 1 action (Gr energeia/operatio). Nestorianism was declared heretic at Ephesus (431 CE); Eutychianism at Calcedon (451) and Apollinarism acutally as early as 377. Monotheletism appeared at a later time but was eventually condemned in 680. All the christological debates were word games in a sense, with the victors defining previous vague words to have concrete meanings. > actual reasons for schism were political, as ever: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Of course, not all people in all sides necessarily knew/know their own > doctrine. There's a thing called the 'us v. them' mentality. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 11:17): >> > also Monophysite Churches (Armenian Orthodox, Jacobite Syrian, Coptic) >> > reject Dec. 25 as the date of Christmass. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > no, it's Monophysite (Mono, from one, Christ having only a divine > nature). AIUI, those churches (I think they are the Oriental Orthodox group) have always considered themselves miaphysite, but other churches have in the past called them monophysite. Sometime relatively recently, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox theologians got together and agreed that both groups believed basically the same thing but had always been expressing it in different terms. SignatureI heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt] > > > "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) > > > hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > One doesn't "include the East." One has to wonder what knowledge you > have of the Eastern churches. The word 'Christendom', which you used, would normally be taken to include the Eastern Orthodox. One wonders why you wouldn't. > Are you by any chance one of those crackpots who want the Mass > peformed in Latin, who think Jesus decreed that clergy be celibate, > and the congeries of heterodox beliefs that go along with those two? I don't believe in Jesus. But if I did, I might well be one of those, as religion if it were true could not be suffered to modernise in the way you leftists want. Andrew Usher > > > > "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) > > > > hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The word 'Christendom', which you used, would normally be taken to > include the Eastern Orthodox. One wonders why you wouldn't. They are among the many churches for which the Roman Catholic Church (which may have been what you meant by "the Catholic Church"?) does not speak. > > Are you by any chance one of those crackpots who want the Mass > > peformed in Latin, who think Jesus decreed that clergy be celibate, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as religion if it were true could not be suffered to modernise in the > way you leftists want. If you're not even a Christian, why the hell are you structuring your calendar around the Roman Catholic church? Peter T. Daniels wrote (23-02-2010 12:42): >>>>> "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) >>>>> hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (which may have been what you meant by "the Catholic Church"?) does > not speak. It's just that that's what he was saying. That the CC "hasn't spoken for all of Christendom" for "longer than half a millennium". You pretend not to know what "The Catholic Church" refers to, yet your answer is built on equating it with a certain church currently led by one Benedict XVI. > Peter T. Daniels wrote (23-02-2010 12:42): > > On Feb 23, 7:04 am, Andrew Usher<k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) > >>>>> hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It's just that that's what he was saying. That the CC "hasn't spoken for all > of Christendom" for "longer than half a millennium". That was I that said that. Count chevrons very carefully when deleting attributions. > You pretend not to know what "The Catholic Church" refers to, yet your > answer is built on equating it with a certain church currently led by one > Benedict XVI.- It is Usher who said "'The Church' refers to exactly one organisation" (complete with the quaint British spelling). Peter T. Daniels wrote (23-02-2010 20:35): >> Peter T. Daniels wrote (23-02-2010 12:42): > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > That was I that said that. Count chevrons very carefully when deleting > attributions. You said "hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium". Usher said "longer than half a millennium". >> You pretend not to know what "The Catholic Church" refers to, yet your >> answer is built on equating it with a certain church currently led by one >> Benedict XVI.- > > It is Usher who said "'The Church' refers to exactly one > organisation" (complete with the quaint British spelling). Well, I certainly wonder why he included that 'The Church' bit. Maybe he's one of those persons who have come to admire the RC while not necessarily believing a thing the RC says? > Peter T. Daniels wrote (23-02-2010 20:35): > > On Feb 23, 8:44 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > You said "hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a > millennium". Usher said "longer than half a millennium". Ah. Your first quote was me, your second quote was him. I was thinking of Martin Luther. Presumably he was thinking of the Great Schism a century earlier. > >> You pretend not to know what "The Catholic Church" refers to, yet your > >> answer is built on equating it with a certain church currently led by one [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Maybe he's one of those persons who have come to admire the RC while not > necessarily believing a thing the RC says?- Note that he subsequently denied being a Christian at all. > > >> The word 'Christendom', which you used, would normally be taken to > > >> include the Eastern Orthodox. One wonders why you wouldn't. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That was I that said that. Count chevrons very carefully when deleting > attributions. His point, though, is still correct. > > You pretend not to know what "The Catholic Church" refers to, yet your > > answer is built on equating it with a certain church currently led by one > > Benedict XVI.- > > It is Usher who said "'The Church' refers to exactly one > organisation" (complete with the quaint British spelling). You have provided no evidence to refute that people in general context understand the phrase to particularly refer to that church headed by the Pope. Andrew Usher >> It is Usher who said "'The Church' refers to exactly one >> organisation" (complete with the quaint British spelling). > >You have provided no evidence to refute that people in general context >understand the phrase to particularly refer to that church headed by >the Pope. It seems to me that "the church" refers to whatever church the speaker belongs to. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > > The word 'Christendom', which you used, would normally be taken to > > include the Eastern Orthodox. One wonders why you wouldn't. > > They are among the many churches for which the Roman Catholic Church > (which may have been what you meant by "the Catholic Church"?) does > not speak. Non sequitur. > > > Are you by any chance one of those crackpots who want the Mass > > > peformed in Latin, who think Jesus decreed that clergy be celibate, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If you're not even a Christian, why the hell are you structuring your > calendar around the Roman Catholic church? 1. There's no other equally universal set of reference points. 2. Why does what I personally believe have to do with what's the best calendar? Andrew Usher > > > The word 'Christendom', which you used, would normally be taken to > > > include the Eastern Orthodox. One wonders why you wouldn't. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 2. Why does what I personally believe have to do with what's the best > calendar? It means you base "the best calendar" on what you consider no basis at all. Is that reasonable? >> > The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked >> > to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week >> > would be acceptable. ("Catholic" is a commonly used but imprecise abbreviation of "Roman Catholic".) >> "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) >> hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. > > 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to exactly one > organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Also, it's been > longer than half a millennium if one includes the East. The "Roman Catholic Church", the "Old Catholic Church", and the "Polish National Catholic Church" are independent of each other. The "Eastern Catholic Churches" are under papal authority but I don't think they describe themselves as "Roman Catholic". SignatureThe generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. [Robert R. Coveyou] > > 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to exactly one > > organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Also, it's been > > longer than half a millennium if one includes the East. > > The "Roman Catholic Church", the "Old Catholic Church", and the > "Polish National Catholic Church" are independent of each other. Yes, but only one is called outside of itself _the_ Catholic Church. Andrew Usher > > > 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to exactly one > > > organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Also, it's been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes, but only one is called outside of itself _the_ Catholic Church. Only by people who don't know what they're talking about. Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 11:39): >>>> The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked >>>> to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The "Eastern Catholic Churches" are under papal authority but I don't > think they describe themselves as "Roman Catholic". Gad, not again! You're trolling, aren't you? "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. In the tradition from which the Roman and the Greek Churches come, the Church has no splitting qualifiers. It's just 'the Church'. 'Roman Church' can only mean 'the Church in the city of Rome' or 'the Church, in communion with Rome' (which is redundant). From the Church's point of view, there aren't multiple churches. There's only one. To say that there is more than one church is heresy. It's not a matter of wishing to be the only one, it's a religious matter. The multiplicity of churches is anathema and downright sin. Now, historically, 'Catholic Church' has been used whenever one needs to contrast the Church to some heretic/schismatic group. And that simply because while the heretics/schismatics were glad to call themselves 'church', if someone came to them asking for 'the catholic church', all of them would point to the non-heretics/schismatics. For whatever reason, not one heretic/schismatic body has ever called itself simply-'Catholic'-without-more. Not in the ancient world, not after the E-W schism, not after the Reformation. It's under the name 'Catholic' that catholics were persecuted in northern Europe. When someone mentions 'catholics', it's not to eastern orthodox, old or polish catholics that they are refering to. 'Catholic' meaning 'universal' was also until recently an accurate descriptor, since the Roman Church more than any other sought to be a universal organisation, as opposed to the politically-splintered Protestants and the ethnically-splintered various Orthodoxes. In more recent times, most of those have boosted their universal aspirations (which always existed), of course. The Roman Church usually calls itself 'the Church', but is fond of 'Catholic' for a variety of reasons, so 'the Catholic Church' is often used officially. In ecumenical context, if apporpriate, it doesn't object to also being 'Roman', but that adjective is otherwise left out since it may be interpreted as limiting (if not outright contradictory when juxtaposed to 'catholic'). Courtesy also means the RC is willing to call the Orthodox 'Orthodox', since it's the name the latter are fond of, not unlike the catholics are fond of 'Catholic'. That doesn't mean the RC doesn't consider itself orthodox, or that the EO don't consider themselves catholic. Officaly not being there a 'Roman Catholic Church', the question of whether the 'Eastern Catholic Churches' are 'Catholic' but not 'Roman Catholic' makes no sense. But if one applies Church terminology, then 'Roman Catholic Church' can only mean 'The Catholic Church, in communion with Rome', which the ECC certainly are. Now, you *may* wish to call the Roman Church 'the Roman Catholic Church', but in that case you're not the best source of information on the relationship of the ECC to the RC. People *not* into the church's organisation may think that 'Roman' refers to the Roman Rite. It doesn't. The adjective that may go with 'Roman Rite' is 'Latin', but even that is not very accurate. but it *is* accurate to say that the ECC are 'non-Latin CC', even if it's somewhat unwieldy. On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:16:59 +0000, António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt> wrote in <news:hm0kgg$548$1@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 11:39): >>>>> The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than >>>>> once (it's linked to somewhere in this thread) that >>>>> fixing Easter to a particular week would be >>>>> acceptable. >> ("Catholic" is a commonly used but imprecise abbreviation >> of "Roman Catholic".) >>>> "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific >>>> organization) hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for >>>> nearly half a millennium. >>> 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to >>> exactly one organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend >>> otherwise. Also, it's been longer than half a >>> millennium if one includes the East. >> The "Roman Catholic Church", the "Old Catholic Church", >> and the "Polish National Catholic Church" are >> independent of each other. >> The "Eastern Catholic Churches" are under papal authority >> but I don't think they describe themselves as "Roman >> Catholic". > Gad, not again! You're trolling, aren't you? > "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. > ANYWHERE. It and RC are, however, widely used popular designations. > In the tradition from which the Roman and the Greek > Churches come, the Church has no splitting qualifiers. But this isn't really relevant outside that tradition. [...] > From the Church's point of view, there aren't multiple > churches. But from an external point of view there very obviously are. [...] > When someone mentions 'catholics', it's not to eastern > orthodox, old or polish catholics that they are refering > to. I have personally heard counterexamples to this assertion, though I grant that they are rare. [...] > but it *is* accurate to say that the ECC are 'non-Latin > CC', even if it's somewhat unwieldy. Which in a widely used popular terminology becomes 'Catholic but not Roman Catholic'. Brian Brian M. Scott wrote (23-02-2010 16:56): > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:16:59 +0000, António Marques > <antonioprm@sapo.pt> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > It and RC are, however, widely used popular designations. Indeed, but what relevance does that have when trying to ascertain what the precise terminology is? >> In the tradition from which the Roman and the Greek >> Churches come, the Church has no splitting qualifiers. > > But this isn't really relevant outside that tradition. But what is the relevance of the outside of that tradition to what the ECC think of themselves? >> From the Church's point of view, there aren't multiple >> churches. > > But from an external point of view there very obviously are. It depends, but what is the relevance of any external point of view to the internal point of view which is being discussed? >> When someone mentions 'catholics', it's not to eastern >> orthodox, old or polish catholics that they are refering >> to. > > I have personally heard counterexamples to this assertion, > though I grant that they are rare. Counterexamples may exist, under special circumstances. >> but it *is* accurate to say that the ECC are 'non-Latin >> CC', even if it's somewhat unwieldy. > > Which in a widely used popular terminology becomes 'Catholic > but not Roman Catholic'. In widely used popular terminologies spiders are insects, Cycadaceae are palms and the moon is made of mozzarella. And the Holy Trinity is composed of God, Jesus and the Virgin Mary. Not that many people outside the ECC even know that they exist, how relevant can a designation for them be that is founded on misunderstanding of its elements and the ways they combine? Should it be encouraged, even? On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:39:35 +0000, António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt> wrote in <news:hm13st$kct$1@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > Brian M. Scott wrote (23-02-2010 16:56): >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:16:59 +0000, António Marques >> <antonioprm@sapo.pt> wrote in >> <news:hm0kgg$548$1@news.eternal-september.org> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 11:39): >>>>>>> The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than >>>>>>> once (it's linked to somewhere in this thread) that >>>>>>> fixing Easter to a particular week would be >>>>>>> acceptable. >>>> ("Catholic" is a commonly used but imprecise abbreviation >>>> of "Roman Catholic".) >>>>>> "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific >>>>>> organization) hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for >>>>>> nearly half a millennium. >>>>> 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to >>>>> exactly one organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend >>>>> otherwise. Also, it's been longer than half a >>>>> millennium if one includes the East. >>>> The "Roman Catholic Church", the "Old Catholic Church", >>>> and the "Polish National Catholic Church" are >>>> independent of each other. >>>> The "Eastern Catholic Churches" are under papal authority >>>> but I don't think they describe themselves as "Roman >>>> Catholic". >>> Gad, not again! You're trolling, aren't you? >>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. >>> ANYWHERE. >> It and RC are, however, widely used popular designations. > Indeed, but what relevance does that have when trying to > ascertain what the precise terminology is? It's not apparent that any particular notion of precise terminology is relevant to Peter's deliberate misunderstanding and the subsequent comments thereon. >>> In the tradition from which the Roman and the Greek >>> Churches come, the Church has no splitting qualifiers. >> But this isn't really relevant outside that tradition. > But what is the relevance of the outside of that tradition > to what the ECC think of themselves? You seem to be involved in a different discussion. >>> From the Church's point of view, there aren't multiple >>> churches. >> But from an external point of view there very obviously are. > It depends, but what is the relevance of any external > point of view to the internal point of view which is > being discussed? You may be discussing an internal point of view; I am not, and it's not clear to me that others are doing so, either. [...] >>> but it *is* accurate to say that the ECC are 'non-Latin >>> CC', even if it's somewhat unwieldy. >> Which in a widely used popular terminology becomes 'Catholic >> but not Roman Catholic'. > In widely used popular terminologies spiders are insects, > Cycadaceae are palms and the moon is made of mozzarella. Not comparable. 'Catholic but not Roman Catholic' actually does identify the churches in question. [...] Brian Brian M. Scott wrote (23-02-2010 18:48): > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:39:35 +0000, António Marques > <antonioprm@sapo.pt> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > terminology is relevant to Peter's deliberate > misunderstanding and the subsequent comments thereon. I was, however, merely addressing Adam's remark below which I commented. It referred to how the ECC describe themselves. Had it referred to how some or many may describe the ECC, I probably wouldn't have commented at all. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Not comparable. 'Catholic but not Roman Catholic' actually > does identify the churches in question. I disagree. If anything, 'Catholic but not Roman Catholic' might more easily refer to the old catholics or polish national catholics. 'Insect' at least refers to a trait that spiders share. >>>>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. >>>>> ANYWHERE. As I said earlier, it's what the churches print on their own signs in the UK and (I think) in much of the USA. > I disagree. If anything, 'Catholic but not Roman Catholic' might more easily > refer to the old catholics or polish national catholics. I certainly agree with you on that. SignatureIn the 1970s, people began receiving utility bills for -£999,999,996.32 and it became harder to sustain the myth of the infallible electronic brain. (Stob 2001) Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 21:30): >>>>>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. >>>>>> ANYWHERE. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I certainly agree with you on that. Maybe I should clarify that my lack of capitalisation is not meant to disrespect or actually antyhing. It's just laziness combined with a quite high threshold for capitalising adjectives. > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:39:35 +0000, Ant nio Marques > <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > terminology is relevant to Peter's deliberate > misunderstanding and the subsequent comments thereon. _Now_ what are you accusing me of? > >>> In the tradition from which the Roman and the Greek > >>> Churches come, the Church has no splitting qualifiers. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Not comparable. 'Catholic but not Roman Catholic' actually > does identify the churches in question. There is, for instance, a Ukrainian Catholic Church, with a cathedral in Pittsburgh, and its observances (as at its large church in Chicago) borrow a great deal from Orthodox practice. >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:39:35 +0000, Ant nio Marques >> <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >in Pittsburgh, and its observances (as at its large church in Chicago) >borrow a great deal from Orthodox practice. I believe that a great many of the churches which once split away from the church of Rome considered themselves the true catholic chuch. Certainly the Anglicans do. The Anglican covenant says, "(1.1.1) its communion in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Hatunen wrote (23-02-2010 22:47): > I believe that a great many of the churches which once split away > from the church of Rome considered themselves the true catholic [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy > Spirit." Of course they do. But when it comes to self-identify, only one church on this planet consistenty refers to itself simply as 'the Catholic Church' (it also uses other names, namely 'the Church', and where pragmatism requires 'the Roman Catholic Church' - but the 'Roman' adds nothing, unlike 'Old' or 'Polish National' - the RC doesn't see any added value in Roman, it doesn't contribute to the meaning with anything that wasn't there before). Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal ('catholic') vocation. Sure, many of them did have one, but not as a central structuring element. Notice the RC was never 'the Italian Church' even when popes were italian for centuries long. > Hatunen wrote (23-02-2010 22:47): > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > element. Notice the RC was never 'the Italian Church' even when popes were > italian for centuries long. Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the Nicene Creed? (With or without the _filioque_.) >> Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal >> ('catholic') vocation. Sure, many of them did have one, but not as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the Nicene Creed? (With or > without the _filioque_.) Assuming that you're not begging the question, no. Mormons don't. I don't believe Jehovah's Witnesses do. I see claims that Seventh-Day Adventists accept the original (325) Nicene Creed but not the revised (381) version. I'm not sure about Christian Scientists. And I would be surprised if there weren't a number of churches (minor, but more mainstream than those mentioned) that don't disagree with it but don't actually use it. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Theories are not matters of fact, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |they are derived from observing Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fact. If you don't have data, you |don't get good theories. You get kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |theology instead. (650)857-7572 | --John Lawler http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > On Feb 23, 7:07 pm, Ant nio Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote: > >> Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > mainstream than those mentioned) that don't disagree with it but don't > actually use it. Er, under what definition of "Christian" are Mormons Christians? Same for the other two aberrant American movements you mentioned. As for the Adventists (also an aberrant American movement, but less so), what are the "original" vs. "revised" versions? >> > On Feb 23, 7:07 pm, Ant nio Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote: >> >> Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Er, under what definition of "Christian" are Mormons Christians? Under the definition that they consider themselves Christians, that they worship Jesus as divine, and that they use the New Testament as a holy book. Under what definition (other than one that says that you have to accept the Nicean Creed--hence my "begging the question") are they not? > Same for the other two aberrant American movements you mentioned. As > for the Adventists (also an aberrant American movement, but less > so), what are the "original" vs. "revised" versions? A comparison can be found at <URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicean_creed Using marking for 381 INSERTIONS and [deletions]: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker OF HEAVEN AND EARTH AND of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER BEFORE ALL WORLDS, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came dosn from heaven, and was incarnate BY THE HOLY GHOST OF THE VIRGIN MARY, and was made man; He WAS CRUCIFIED FOR US UNDER PONTIUS PILATE, AND suffered, AND WAS BURIED, and the third day he rose again, ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, AND ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN, AND SITTETH ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER; from thence he shall come again, WITH GLORY, to judge the quick and the dead; WHOSE KINGDOM SHALL HAVE NO END. And in the Holy Ghost, THE LORD AND GIVER OF LIFE, WHO PROCEEDETH FROM THE FATHER <AND THE SON>, WHO WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON TOGETHER IS WORSHIPED AND GLORIFIED, WHO SPAKE BY THE PROPHETS. IN ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH; WE ACKNOWLEDGE ONE BAPTISM FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS; WE LOOK FOR THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, AND THE LIFE OF THE WORLD TO COME. AMEN.] [But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'-they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.] SignatureEvan 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/ >>>> On Feb 23, 7:07 pm, Ant nio Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote: >>>>> Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > have to accept the Nicean Creed--hence my "begging the question") are > they not? I'd heard a long time ago from a non-Mormon who had lived in Utah that at one time, Mormons didn't consider themselves Christian, and it was only fairly recently that they had started doing so. A quick Google turned up a LOT of debate on the subject, mostly concerned with the traditional Christian teachings that the Mormons don't hold, and Mormon ones that most Christians don't hold, but one started with "Historically, only until recently have Mormons wanted to be called Christians, preferring not to be included with Christian denominations, which Joseph Smith said were, "all wrong ... all their creeds were an admonition in his sight, and that those professors (Christians) were all corrupt" (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:18-19). " http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/are_mormons_christian.htm Surely in all these groups there must be a Mormon who can inform us whether Mormons have or presently do consider themselves Christians. SignatureCheryl > Surely in all these groups there must be a Mormon who can inform us > whether Mormons have or presently do consider themselves Christians. I'm not a Mormon (though I have Mormon friends), but I've got a copy of Rex Lee's 1992 _What Do Mormon's Believe_, published by Deseret Books. Lee was, at the time president of BYU and the flap of the book mentions his "numerous positions" in the LDS church. Chapter 3 of the book is titled "Jesus Christ, the Son of God: Are Mormons Christian?" It begins A question commonly asked of Mormons is whether we are Christians. I have heard the argument, at times advanced with great passion, that we are not. The argument is ridiculous. I assume that qualification as a Christian turns mainly on a belief in Christ. Mormons not only qualify as Christians under that definition, but they have also given broader meaning to the definition itself. The Restoration brought with it an understanding of Christ beyond what any other [NB] Christian sect offered. Without the principles of the restored gospel, one's understanding of Jesus Christ is less than complete, and the Savior is relegated to a lesser position than he in fact holds. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If you think health care is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |expensive now, wait until you see Palo Alto, CA 94304 |what it costs when it's free. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Surely in all these groups there must be a Mormon who can inform us >> whether Mormons have or presently do consider themselves Christians. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Christ is less than complete, and the Savior is relegated to a > lesser position than he in fact holds. The real issue is what definition of Christian you use. To some of the nutcake fundamentalists, the Pope isn't Christian. >>> Surely in all these groups there must be a Mormon who can inform >>> us whether Mormons have or presently do consider themselves [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > The real issue is what definition of Christian you use. To some of > the nutcake fundamentalists, the Pope isn't Christian. But to the question of "Do they consider themselves Christians?" the answer seems to be pretty clearly "Yes". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you're ready to break a rule, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you _know_ that you're ready; you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |don't need anyone else to tell |you. (If you're not that certain, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |then you're _not_ ready.) (650)857-7572 | Tom Phoenix http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> Cheryl<cperk...@mun.ca> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > But to the question of "Do they consider themselves Christians?" the > answer seems to be pretty clearly "Yes". So, anyone who enters US territory and declares themself to be a citizen, is a US citizen? Are "Jews for Jesus" Jews? I did not ask, "Do Mormons consider themselves Christians?" I asked, "Under what definition of 'Christian' [etc.]?" And your Mr. Lee defines himself _out_ of Christianity by the "broader meaning." > On Feb 24, 1:30 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum > <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote: [...] >> But to the question of "Do they consider themselves >> Christians?" the answer seems to be pretty clearly >> "Yes". > So, anyone who enters US territory and declares themself > to be a citizen, is a US citizen? One's citizenship is a matter of law; one's Christianity is a matter of opinion. [...] Brian "all [of] their creeds are an admonition in [JS's] sight" -- I like it, but waht did he mean? thus: so, what is this "diode" supposed to be connected to? > 3) Diamond has a negative electron work function into vacuum. > 4) Osmium has a 5.92 eV electron work function into vacuum. > US Pat. 5283501 > Chem. Mater. 20(21) 6871 (2008) > Diamond and Related Materials, 15(11-12) 2082 (2006) > Electron Comm Jpn Pt 2, 82(8) 42 (1999) thus: that was the paragraph before their patented new ****. > here:http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/solid-oxide-fuel-cell/. thus: that is an "H2," you say, with 100mpg using *what* kind of engine?... the Bradley fughting Vehicles was said to be big peice of **** by the military, then GM sold it to us as a SUV via the pre- Governeurateur! so, what is the sustainable rate of "fossilized (TM)" fuel production, anyway?... or, what is the "current" rate of its production? --les OEUvres! http://wlym.com --Stop Cheeny, Rice, Pendergast and the ICC's 3rd British invasion of Sudan! http://larouchepub.com >> >> Cheryl<cperk...@mun.ca> writes: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > So, anyone who enters US territory and declares themself to be a > citizen, is a US citizen? Anyone who declares themself to be a US citizen (assuming the declaration to be honest) considers themself a US citizen. The question was whether Mormons consider themselves Christian. > Are "Jews for Jesus" Jews? The present themselves as believing that they are. It's not clear to me that this presentation is honest, at least among those who started the group. It may well be for converts and, especially, second-generation members. > I did not ask, "Do Mormons consider themselves Christians?" No, you didn't. Cheryl, who I was replying to, did, quoted above. > I asked, "Under what definition of 'Christian' [etc.]?" Right. And I answered: Under the definition that they consider themselves Christians, that they worship Jesus as divine, and that they use the New Testament as a holy book. Under what definition (other than one that says that you have to accept the Nicean Creed--hence my "begging the question") are they not? You have not, as far as I have seen, answered my question. > And your Mr. Lee defines himself _out_ of Christianity by the "broader > meaning." How so? I can see that they've defined themselves out of orthodox Christianity by accepting a non-canonical book, but I don't know what definition of "Christianity" you're using that rules out those following additional books about Jesus. Unless, of course, your definition includes necessarily following things like the Nicene Creed, but clearly that couldn't be your definition or you wouldn't have asked if there were Christian churches that didn't. SignatureEvan 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/ > >> >>> Surely in all these groups there must be a Mormon who can inform > >> >>> us whether Mormons have or presently do consider themselves [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > declaration to be honest) considers themself a US citizen. The > question was whether Mormons consider themselves Christian. That question was irrelevant to the point. > > Are "Jews for Jesus" Jews? > > The present themselves as believing that they are. It's not clear to > me that this presentation is honest, at least among those who started > the group. It may well be for converts and, especially, > second-generation members. "Jews for Jesus" assert that the Messiah has come. That is in direct contravention of one of the most basic holdings of Judaism. Thus, "Jews for Jesus" are not Jews, but converts. > > I did not ask, "Do Mormons consider themselves Christians?" > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You have not, as far as I have seen, answered my question. It didn't look like an actual question. The wannabes don't get to define who belongs to the club. The gatekeepers do. > > And your Mr. Lee defines himself _out_ of Christianity by the "broader > > meaning." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Creed, but clearly that couldn't be your definition or you wouldn't > have asked if there were Christian churches that didn't. The various canons of Scripture (which differ slightly around the edges) accepted by the various brands of Christianity were finalized 1700 or more years ago. No option exists within Christianity for adding to that canon. Especially forgeries claimed to be found on golden plates and translated by angels. Into a pastiche of centuries-old diction. > "Jews for Jesus" assert that the Messiah has come. That is in direct > contravention of one of the most basic holdings of Judaism. Thus, > "Jews for Jesus" are not Jews, but converts. That is only true from the point of view of Reform Judaism. In both Orthodox and Conservative Judaism: once a Jew, always a Jew. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > > "Jews for Jesus" assert that the Messiah has come. That is in direct > > contravention of one of the most basic holdings of Judaism. Thus, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In both Orthodox and Conservative Judaism: once a Jew, always > a Jew. So you think an Orthodox rabbi would have no problem with someone both claiming that the Messiah had come, and demanding full participation in all ritual matters? Reading a Torah portion, perhaps, and in his interpretation proclaiming that it prefigured and was fulfilled by the coming of Christ? >>> "Jews for Jesus" assert that the Messiah has come. That is in direct >>> contravention of one of the most basic holdings of Judaism. Thus, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > interpretation proclaiming that it prefigured and was fulfilled by the > coming of Christ? What happens when the Messiah does arrive? Is there some sort of central switch which can be pushed to update all the rabbis? SignatureDavid >>>> "Jews for Jesus" assert that the Messiah has come. That is in direct >>>> contravention of one of the most basic holdings of Judaism. Thus, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >What happens when the Messiah does arrive? Is there some sort of >central switch which can be pushed to update all the rabbis? They will all be gathered together in the Promised Land. Jesus of Nazareth will arrive and will address them: "Right then, let just try again. Pay careful attention...". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) BrE filted: >>What happens when the Messiah does arrive? Is there some sort of >>central switch which can be pushed to update all the rabbis? > >They will all be gathered together in the Promised Land. Jesus of >Nazareth will arrive and will address them: "Right then, let just try >again. Pay careful attention...". Oh great...the Prince of Peace brought PowerPoint slides....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle On 25 Feb 2010 09:04:51 -0800, R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net> wrote in <news:hm6ajj0170n@drn.newsguy.com> in sci.math,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > BrE filted: >>>What happens when the Messiah does arrive? Is there some sort of >>>central switch which can be pushed to update all the rabbis? >>They will all be gathered together in the Promised Land. Jesus of >>Nazareth will arrive and will address them: "Right then, let just try >>again. Pay careful attention...". > Oh great...the Prince of Peace brought PowerPoint slides....r Pessimist. Perhaps he's going to pull a rabbi out of a hat. Brian > BrE filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Oh great...the Prince of Peace brought PowerPoint slides....r And the Church will say "Damn! We'd add them to the canon, but we finalized it 1,700 years ago." SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Never ascribe to malice that which 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can adequately be explained by Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stupidity. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:38:26 -0800: >> BrE filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> Oh great...the Prince of Peace brought PowerPoint slides....r > And the Church will say "Damn! We'd add them to the canon, > but we finalized it 1,700 years ago." It has long been maintained that announcements of radical changes from the Vatican begin: "As the Church has always maintained". (I am a not very loyal Catholic and a member of the Voice of the Faithful.) SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not Evan Kirshenbaum: >> BrE filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And the Church will say "Damn! We'd add them to the canon, but we > finalized it 1,700 years ago." "... and those old Canon projectors can't take power point slides." SignatureTrond Engen > Evan Kirshenbaum: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > "... and those old Canon projectors can't take power point slides." Oh, that's good. SignatureI spend almost as much time figuring out what's wrong with my computer as I do actually using it. Networked software, especially, requires frequent updates and maintenance, all of which gets in the way of doing routine work. (Stoll 1995) >BrE filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Oh great...the Prince of Peace brought PowerPoint slides....r ...following a hallowed tradition. Moses is well known for his presentation of ten bullet points on two slides reportedly engraved by The Lord. The creation of the Earth and its inhabitants involved a seven stage process. The scriptures do not reveal whether the Creator made a checklist in advance, and if so on what it was written. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> BrE filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > process. The scriptures do not reveal whether the Creator made a > checklist in advance, and if so on what it was written. The spirit pen moved upon the face of the waters. SignatureJames James Hogg filted: >>> BrE filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >The spirit pen moved upon the face of the waters. As with most of the projects I've been involved in, the documentation was written *after* implementation....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > James Hogg filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > As with most of the projects I've been involved in, the documentation was > written *after* implementation....r Which usually describes bugs as features. :-) pjk >>BrE filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > process. The scriptures do not reveal whether the Creator made a > checklist in advance, and if so on what it was written. Well, all of the "And God saw that it was good"s certainly sound like a verbose way of saying "Check." SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Theories are not matters of fact, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |they are derived from observing Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fact. If you don't have data, you |don't get good theories. You get kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |theology instead. (650)857-7572 | --John Lawler http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Moses is well known for his presentation of ten bullet points on two >> slides reportedly engraved by The Lord. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well, all of the "And God saw that it was good"s certainly sound like > a verbose way of saying "Check." s/verbose/more dignified/ SignatureMathematiker sind wie Franzosen: Was man ihnen auch sagt, übersetzen sie in ihre eigene Sprache, so daß unverzüglich etwas völlig anderes daraus wird. [Goethe] >>>> "Jews for Jesus" assert that the Messiah has come. That is in >>>> direct contravention of one of the most basic holdings of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> perhaps, and in his interpretation proclaiming that it prefigured >> and was fulfilled by the coming of Christ? I think that what would upset the rabbi would be that the person *was* a Jew and that such a belief is heretical for Jews. And that obviously the person's Jewish education had been pretty poor if he could accept such arguments. But that he would be encouraged by the fact that the person was still interested in performing Jewish ritual. I'm not sure what you mean by "in his interpretation proclaiming", since what you do when you read a Torah portion is read it aloud and then sit down (except at a Bar/t Mitzvah, where you will be expected to talk about the whole parshah), but I would hope that if the person argued such a thing in a Torah study session or the like, the rabbi would simply argue against it. That's what rabbis do. > What happens when the Messiah does arrive? Is there some sort of > central switch which can be pushed to update all the rabbis? Note that rabbis are like professors. There's nothing inherently special about being a rabbi, nor are there any things that they are needed for. They're just seen as knowledgeable people and good service leaders, congregation leaders, and teachers. When the Messiah comes, I'm fairly certain that most Jews expect that either it will be blindingly obvious or that there will be a lot of debate, with consensus arising over time. Note that there have been claims in the past. The Baal Shem Tov in the 18th century, Shabtey Zvi in the 17th. The Lubavitcher Rebbe (Menachem Mendel Schneerson) in the late 20th. Typically, the argument in the wider Jewish community is dropped when the proclaimed (or suspected) messiah dies, as dying is something of a no-no for Jewish messiahs[1], but also typically some of his followers split off to form their own sect. This appears to be true of the Chabad messianists, who claim that Schneerson (who died in 1994) is the messiah. I don't believe I've heard it seriously argued that the Chabadniks that hold that he was the messiah aren't Jews, though. [1] The Rambam (Maimonides), in the _Mishneh Torah_, write "But if he did not succeed to this degree, or if he was killed, it becomes known that he is not this one of whom the Torah had promised us." SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A specification which calls for 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |network-wide use of encryption, but Palo Alto, CA 94304 |invokes the Tooth Fairy to handle |key distribution, is a useless kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |farce. (650)857-7572 | Henry Spencer http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> On Feb 25, 10:01 am, Tak To<ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Note that there have been claims in the past. The Baal Shem Tov in > the 18th century, Shabtey Zvi in the 17th. The Lubavitcher Rebbe the Sabteists were forcibly converted to Islam, but retained their practices in private. recently one wanted to be recognized officially as a Jew in Turkey (where one's religion is registered), but the Chief Rabbi of Turkey refused the recognition, and thus she couldn't change her papers. > (Menachem Mendel Schneerson) in the late 20th. Typically, the > argument in the wider Jewish community is dropped when the proclaimed [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -- ... > > Note that there have been claims in the past. The Baal Shem Tov in > > the 18th century, Shabtey Zvi in the 17th. The Lubavitcher Rebbe [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Rabbi of Turkey refused the recognition, and thus she couldn't change > her papers. What was the reason--her matrilineal Jewish ancestry wasn't documented? There may be a similar situation in Spanish America. For people where I live, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-Jews#Former_Spanish-territories_in_the_south western_U.S._1600s.E2.80.931700s and references therein. (A friend of mine who's a historian is on the skeptical side.) -- Jerry Friedman > ... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What was the reason--her matrilineal Jewish ancestry wasn't > documented? the reason was that the Chief Rabbi doesn't consider Sabbateans as Jewish. > There may be a similar situation in Spanish America. For people where > I live, see [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Jerry Friedman >> ... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > the Sabteists were forcibly converted to Islam, but retained >> > their practices in private. recently one wanted I didn't expect to see "Sabbatean" (or similar) and "recently" in the same sentence. I didn't think they lasted much past the early eighteenth century. I see on Wikipedia that there's a group, called the "Dönmeh", who are openly Muslim but Crypto-Jewish messianists. >> > to be recognized officially as a Jew in Turkey (where one's >> > religion is registered), but the Chief Rabbi of Turkey refused [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the reason was that the Chief Rabbi doesn't consider Sabbateans as > Jewish. I don't know what the politics of it are in Turkey, but I have to wonder whether (besides the views of his own group), he didn't want the political hassles of being seen as encouraging officially Muslim citizens to renounce Islam. As an aside, I have to say that the notion of a particular rabbi having the power to make such official decisions on behalf of anybody but his own followers strikes me as odd and, frankly, un-Jewish. (I know that it happens in Israel, too. It strikes me as odd there, as well.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Revolution" has many definitions. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |From the looks of this, I'd say Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"going around in circles" comes |closest to applying... kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Richard M. Hartman (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> ... > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > the political hassles of being seen as encouraging officially Muslim > citizens to renounce Islam. no, he just didn't recognize the sect. > As an aside, I have to say that the notion of a particular rabbi > having the power to make such official decisions on behalf of anybody [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -- > > > "Jews for Jesus" assert that the Messiah has come. That is in direct > > > contravention of one of the most basic holdings of Judaism. Thus, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > interpretation proclaiming that it prefigured and was fulfilled by the > coming of Christ? Put those goalposts back! The Chabad site I quoted clearly corroborates what Tak To said: the Orthodox believe "once a Jew, always a Jew", including people who convert to other religions. The question of "full participation in ritual matters" is different, and I'm not sure how it works. Being a Jew seems to be a necessary but not sufficient condition. In rare cases--Spinoza is well known-- rabbinical authorities have banned a person from all activities in the Jewish community, but they still considered the person under the "cherem" to be a Jew. -- Jerry Friedman > > > > "Jews for Jesus" assert that the Messiah has come. That is in direct > > > > contravention of one of the most basic holdings of Judaism. Thus, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Orthodox believe "once a Jew, always a Jew", including people who > convert to other religions. I don't know if the policy of Israel is that way. I remember the "Jews for Jesus" protesting an Israeli visitor (as a sideline when much larger issues were on the agenda). I think they wanted to be recognized as Jews. > The question of "full participation in ritual matters" is different, > and I'm not sure how it works. Being a Jew seems to be a necessary [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Jerry Friedman > > > > > "Jews for Jesus" assert that the Messiah has come. That is in direct > > > > > contravention of one of the most basic holdings of Judaism. Thus, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > larger issues were on the agenda). I think they wanted to be > recognized as Jews. I believe you're right. "4A. (a) The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law, 5712-1952***, as well as the rights of an oleh under any other enactment, are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion." http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1950_1959/Law%20of%20Return%205710-1950 From Wikipedia: "The Supreme Court of Israel ruled in 1989 that Messianic Judaism constituted another religion, and that people who had become Messianic Jews were not therefore eligible for Aliyah under the law.[8] "On April 16, 2008, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled in a case brought by a number of people with Jewish fathers and grandfathers whose applications for citizenship had been rejected on the grounds that they were Messianic Jews. The argument was made by the applicants that they had never been Jews according to halakha, and were not therefore excluded by the conversion clause. This argument was upheld in the ruling,[9][10] and the government agreed to reprocess their applications. "[8] Israeli Court Rules Jews for Jesus Cannot Automatically Be Citizens - New York Times "[9] "Messianic Ruling". jpost.com. The Jerusalem Post. 2008. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870469395&pagename=JPost%2FJPArti cle%2FShowFull. Retrieved 2008-04-22. ""the petitioners were entitled to automatic new immigrant status and citizenship precisely because...they were the offspring of Jewish fathers."" "[10] "Messianic Ruling". cbn.com. CBNnews.com. 2008. http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/359362.aspx. Retrieved 2008-04-17. "Myers told CBN News, "The bottom line is that if your father is Jewish or if any of your grandparents are Jewish from your father's side - even if you're a Messianic Jew - you can immigrate to Israel under the law of return or under the law of citizenship if you marry an Israeli citizen."" -- Jerry Friedman >> > The Chabad site I quoted clearly corroborates what Tak To said: >> > the Orthodox believe "once a Jew, always a Jew", including people [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1950_1959/Law%20of%20Return%205710-1950 Note that that's not really addressing the question of whether someone is Jewish but whether someone legally has the right to immigrate to a particular country on the basis of their Jewishness. > From Wikipedia: > > "The Supreme Court of Israel ruled in 1989 that Messianic Judaism > constituted another religion, and that people who had become > Messianic Jews were not therefore eligible for Aliyah under the > law.[8] That's a bit misleading. The _NY Times_ article referenced said that the Supreme Court concluded that "their belief that Jesus was the Messiah makes them Christians instead of Jews" and that "belief in Jesus made one a member of another faith and ineligible for automatic Israeli citizenship". There are other Messianic Jewish sects that pick a different candidate. > "On April 16, 2008, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled in a case > brought by a number of people with Jewish fathers and grandfathers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > was upheld in the ruling,[9][10] and the government agreed to > reprocess their applications. Note that it may be important to this case that it was specifically *fathers* and *grandfathers*. Halakhically, Jewishness goes through the mother, so the argument was that either they were Jews or they had never been Jews but had Jewish parents. In either case, they'd qualify. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When all else fails, give the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |customer what they ask for. This Palo Alto, CA 94304 |is strong medicine and rarely needs |to be repeated. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > > "Jews for Jesus" assert that the Messiah has come. That is in direct > > > contravention of one of the most basic holdings of Judaism. Thus, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > interpretation proclaiming that it prefigured and was fulfilled by the > coming of Christ? from what I know of them, most are mainstream Trinitarian Christians, unlike the Jewish Christians of antiquity that had their own Gospels (some had some sort of Trinity - though usually not the generally accepted one - but some not) and followed Jewish Law >>> "Jews for Jesus" assert that the Messiah has come. That is in direct >>> contravention of one of the most basic holdings of Judaism. Thus, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > interpretation proclaiming that it prefigured and was fulfilled by the > coming of Christ? I never said anything about "having problem". An apostate Jew might be punishable by death but would still be considered a Jew nonetheless. To continue your metaphor: the gatekeeper gets to decide who gets in as well as who gets out. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- > Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx > --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ > [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr Perhaps you're unaware that the xx has already been trimmed in the "From:" field of your postings. Address harvesters are much more likely to get information from the headers than from the body of the message. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- >> Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "From:" field of your postings. Address harvesters are much more likely > to get information from the headers than from the body of the message. I am aware that I have set up a real email address to be used for the "From" field of messages sent from this nntp-server. I did so under the false impression that this nntp-server, like so many others on the net, requires a real email address. I have just now verified that I can use a non-existent email address for this nntp-server. Thanks for reminding me. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >> >> >>> Surely in all these groups there must be a Mormon who can >> >> >>> inform us whether Mormons have or presently do consider [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > That question was irrelevant to the point. It was the question on the table. >> > Are "Jews for Jesus" Jews? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > contravention of one of the most basic holdings of Judaism. Thus, > "Jews for Jesus" are not Jews, but converts. By itself, it makes them heretical, not non-Jews. The whole point of the Jewish notion of the messiah is that at some point he *will* come, so Jews who believe in it assume that there will be a point at which "the Messiah has come" will be true and will become the orthodox position. Other Jews have held in the past that various people were (or might have been) the messiah. The only differences with this particular choice are that (1) they picked someone who lived a long time ago, who was long ago de termined (for the orthodox) not to have been the messiah and (2) the movement was transparently created as a way to convince Jews to convert to Christianity. That is, they didn't expect there to *be* long-term Jews-for-Jesus family lineages, but rather people would take it as a step in a transition to mainstream Christianity (which asserts itself to not be Judaism). >> > I did not ask, "Do Mormons consider themselves Christians?" >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > It didn't look like an actual question. I'm not sure why not, but in any case, it was. I would like to know what definition you would use for determining whether a group (however heretical) was, in fact, a (heretical) Christian group. > The wannabes don't get to define who belongs to the club. The > gatekeepers do. If it's an appeal to authority, then I presume your original question was begged. If the "gatekeepers" assert that the Nicene Creed is part of being Christian, then no Christian groups fail to use it by definition. >> > And your Mr. Lee defines himself _out_ of Christianity by the "broader >> > meaning." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 1700 or more years ago. No option exists within Christianity for > adding to that canon. I had thought that those who accept other books (at least other pre-existing books) were considered to be heretical Christians rather than non-Christians. > Especially forgeries claimed to be found on golden plates and > translated by angels. Into a pastiche of centuries-old diction. Or, presumably, if an archaeological site uncovered a new letter, fully compatible with the current canon, determined by Christian authorities to have been written by St. Paul. Any church which added it to their canon would becom non-Christian by your argument. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A little government and a little luck 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |are necessary in life, but only a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fool trusts either of them. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > I would like to know > what definition you would use for determining whether a group (however > heretical) was, in fact, a (heretical) Christian group. "Heretical" _means_ they're not part of the fold. You can hope and pray that they renounce their heresy, but until they do, they're out. > > The wannabes don't get to define who belongs to the club. The > > gatekeepers do. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > part of being Christian, then no Christian groups fail to use it by > definition. That would seem to be the case. (And there's a difference between regularly reciting a creed, and accepting it as part of doctrine. You'd be hard pressed to find a copy of the Athanasian Creed -- at least, before internet days -- yet it sets forth the basics of, at least, Western Christianity.) > >> > And your Mr. Lee defines himself _out_ of Christianity by the "broader > >> > meaning." [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > authorities to have been written by St. Paul. Any church which added > it to their canon would becom non-Christian by your argument. Many similar documents have been discovered in recent decades, and no Christian church has even _considered_ adding them to the canon. >> I would like to know what definition you would use for determining >> whether a group (however heretical) was, in fact, a (heretical) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pray that they renounce their heresy, but until they do, they're > out. Well, that's the argument I've heard that Catholics (or Protestants or ...) aren't Christians, but I wouldn't have thought it would be taken seriously much anymore. I had thought, though, that in order to be heretical you actually had to *be* Christian (or at least the doctrine had to be). But wrong. Or are Jews and Hindus considered "heretics", too? >> > The wannabes don't get to define who belongs to the club. The >> > gatekeepers do. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > least, before internet days -- yet it sets forth the basics of, at > least, Western Christianity.) Okay. If your original question was begged I certainly can't argue with it. >> > The various canons of Scripture (which differ slightly around the >> > edges) accepted by the various brands of Christianity were [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Many similar documents have been discovered in recent decades, and no > Christian church has even _considered_ adding them to the canon. Well, at least no question-begging Christian church. But I'm curious which documents you have in mind with your "similar". I wasn't aware of any accepted by the church as having been written by an author of a canonical text (which was, after all, the point of my statement). That documents rejected from the canon when it was constructed (or representing schools considered heretical at the time) aren't added to the canon upon being discovered isn't particularly surprising. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Yesterday I washed a single sock. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |When I opened the door, the machine Palo Alto, CA 94304 |was empty. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> I would like to know what definition you would use for determining > >> whether a group (however heretical) was, in fact, a (heretical) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ...) aren't Christians, but I wouldn't have thought it would be taken > seriously much anymore. The right wing of the Anglican Communion has claimed that the Anglican churches that have ordained women and/or homosexuals are heretical. There was a heresy trial in some conservative US church not long ago over something along the lines of race-mixing. (Don't ask me, it was a brief mention on some news broadcast some time.) > I had thought, though, that in order to be > heretical you actually had to *be* Christian (or at least the doctrine > had to be). But wrong. Or are Jews and Hindus considered "heretics", > too? Of course not. > >> > The wannabes don't get to define who belongs to the club. The > >> > gatekeepers do. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Okay. If your original question was begged I certainly can't argue > with it. I don't process well passive statements of which the agent is utterly unrecoverable. What _are_ you talking about? > >> > The various canons of Scripture (which differ slightly around the > >> > edges) accepted by the various brands of Christianity were [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of any accepted by the church as having been written by an author of a > canonical text (which was, after all, the point of my statement). Very few canonical texts were written by their "authors," so again I don't know what you're talking about. (Look up Pseudepigrapha in a Bible dictionary.) > That documents rejected from the canon when it was constructed (or > representing schools considered heretical at the time) aren't added to > the canon upon being discovered isn't particularly surprising. >> >> I would like to know what definition you would use for determining >> >> whether a group (however heretical) was, in fact, a (heretical) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > over something along the lines of race-mixing. (Don't ask me, it was a > brief mention on some news broadcast some time.) So did those heretical Anglican churches cease to be Christian? If not, on what basis are the Jesus-worshipping, King-James-Version-using Mormons "non-Christian" rather than "heretical Christian"? >> I had thought, though, that in order to be heretical you actually >>had to *be* Christian (or at least the doctrine had to be). But >>wrong. Or are Jews and Hindus considered "heretics", too? > > Of course not. "Of course you don't have to be Christian to be heretical to Christians" or "Of Course Jews and Hindus aren't considered 'heretics' by Christians"? >> >> > The various canons of Scripture (which differ slightly around the >> >> > edges) accepted by the various brands of Christianity were [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > don't know what you're talking about. (Look up Pseudepigrapha in a > Bible dictionary.) But all canonical texts were written by their authors. Again, I'm not Christian, so I may not be up on such things, but I had thought that Luke and Acts had been determined to have been written by the same author (whoever that might have been). And that at least most of the Pauline epistles were considered to have been written by the same person (who was believed to actually be St. Paul). What I'm talking about is another letter asserted to be by Paul and enough in the style of the others that Christian scholars believed it. Or a version of Acts determined to be by the author of John. Or a "Second Acts" by the guy who wrote Luke. I just have a hard time envisioning the Catholic Church saying "Yes, we believe that this letter was written by St. Paul, but it has less status than the others because we didn't know about it seventeen hundred years ago." SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There is something fascinating 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |about science. One gets such Palo Alto, CA 94304 |wholesale returns of conjecture out |of such a trifling investment of kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |fact. (650)857-7572 | Mark Twain http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> >> I would like to know what definition you would use for determining > >> >> whether a group (however heretical) was, in fact, a (heretical) [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Christians" or "Of Course Jews and Hindus aren't considered 'heretics' > by Christians"? If you can't figure it out, you've been talking to the computers for far too long. > >> >> > The various canons of Scripture (which differ slightly around the > >> >> > edges) accepted by the various brands of Christianity were [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > But all canonical texts were written by their authors. Again, I'm not No one knows who the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, some of the Pauline epistles, Hebrews, Revelation, and (at least) 2 Peter are. That's whey they're called pseudepigraphical. > Christian, so I may not be up on such things, but I had thought that > Luke and Acts had been determined to have been written by the same [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Acts determined to be by the author of John. Or a "Second Acts" by > the guy who wrote Luke. If something like that ever turns up, it will be appropriately assessed. But that's not too likely, despite the number of times it happens in novels. (The most common example being the Q document.) > I just have a hard time envisioning the Catholic Church saying "Yes, > we believe that this letter was written by St. Paul, but it has less > status than the others because we didn't know about it seventeen > hundred years ago." And how, exactly, would such a document suddenly come to light? >> >> >> Or, presumably, if an archaeological site uncovered a new letter, >> >> >> fully compatible with the current canon, determined by Christian [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > some of the Pauline epistles, Hebrews, Revelation, and (at least) 2 > Peter are. That's whey they're called pseudepigraphical. But it's a pretty good bet that they had authors. And while nobody knows who the author Luke is or the author of Acts, the broad consensus (unless it's changed recently) is that whoever they were, they were the same person. >> Christian, so I may not be up on such things, but I had thought that >> Luke and Acts had been determined to have been written by the same [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If something like that ever turns up, it will be appropriately > assessed. And, I would have thought, if so determined, probably added to the canon. The one you called "finalized" and for which "no option exists within Christianity for adding to" it. > But that's not too likely, despite the number of times it happens in > novels. Not likely at all. > (The most common example being the Q document.) Someone's found a manuscript of Q? When did that happen? As far as I knew it was hypothetical, inferred from the contents of Matthew and Luke. >> I just have a hard time envisioning the Catholic Church saying >> "Yes, we believe that this letter was written by St. Paul, but it >> has less status than the others because we didn't know about it >> seventeen hundred years ago." > > And how, exactly, would such a document suddenly come to light? Probably the same way all of the late-discovered non-canonical gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the like did. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I may digress momentarily from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |the mainstream of this evening's Palo Alto, CA 94304 |symposium, I'd like to sing a song |which is completely pointless. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Tom Lehrer (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> >> >> Or, presumably, if an archaeological site uncovered a new letter, > >> >> >> fully compatible with the current canon, determined by Christian [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > But it's a pretty good bet that they had authors. And while nobody Quite a few textual scholars would contest that assertion. the best we can say is that they had "redactors" who compiled existing bits of tradition, primarily oral, possibly (in the case of Q) written. > knows who the author Luke is or the author of Acts, the broad > consensus (unless it's changed recently) is that whoever they were, > they were the same person. Nothing to do with "consensus." It says so in the text. > >> Christian, so I may not be up on such things, but I had thought that > >> Luke and Acts had been determined to have been written by the same [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > canon. The one you called "finalized" and for which "no option exists > within Christianity for adding to" it. Do explain what the options for opening the 1700-year-old canon are. > > But that's not too likely, despite the number of times it happens in > > novels. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > knew it was hypothetical, inferred from the contents of Matthew and > Luke. There are quite a few novels about it. Has Dan Brown gotten around to it yet? > >> I just have a hard time envisioning the Catholic Church saying > >> "Yes, we believe that this letter was written by St. Paul, but it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Probably the same way all of the late-discovered non-canonical > gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the like did. Really? To what communities could Paul have written where suitable climatic conditions prevail? >> >> > Very few canonical texts were written by their "authors," so >> >> > again I don't know what you're talking about. (Look up [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > we can say is that they had "redactors" who compiled existing bits > of tradition, primarily oral, possibly (in the case of Q) written. So for you someone who takes "existing bits of (oral) tradition" and writes a document based on them isn't an "author" but merely a "redactor"? >> knows who the author Luke is or the author of Acts, the broad >> consensus (unless it's changed recently) is that whoever they were, >> they were the same person. > > Nothing to do with "consensus." It says so in the text. So now it's okay to trust what the text says? Then if another document comes to light that says in the text that it's written by the same author it should be a slam dunk. >> >> Christian, so I may not be up on such things, but I had thought that >> >> Luke and Acts had been determined to have been written by the same [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Do explain what the options for opening the 1700-year-old canon are. Something like, "From now on, this book will be considered part of the canon"? >> > But that's not too likely, despite the number of times it happens in >> > novels. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There are quite a few novels about it. Has Dan Brown gotten around to > it yet? Sorry. I misread you as having been asserting that Q was an example of a document having been found. >> >> I just have a hard time envisioning the Catholic Church saying >> >> "Yes, we believe that this letter was written by St. Paul, but [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Really? To what communities could Paul have written where suitable > climatic conditions prevail? It doesn't matter where he was writing to. What matters is that the letter (or a copy of it) found its way to such a place before all known copies disappeared. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Sorry, captain. Convenient 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |technobabble levels are dangerously Palo Alto, CA 94304 |low. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [sci.lang and aue only] On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:23:59 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:b458457e-ed1d-4b8b-ad9e-6fee10298718@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > The wannabes don't get to define who belongs to the club. The > gatekeepers do. There are no gatekeepers for Christianity: it's obviously a matter of self-identification. There are gatekeepers for most of the umpteen denominations thereof, many of whom claim to be gatekeepers for Christianity tout court, but that's a different matter. >I'd heard a long time ago from a non-Mormon who had lived in Utah that >at one time, Mormons didn't consider themselves Christian, and it was >only fairly recently that they had started doing so. As far as I know the formal name has always been The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> I'd heard a long time ago from a non-Mormon who had lived in Utah that >> at one time, Mormons didn't consider themselves Christian, and it was >> only fairly recently that they had started doing so. > > As far as I know the formal name has always been The Church of > Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Yes, but that doesn't mean that they consider themselves Christians, if you use the term 'Christian' to refer to the beliefs and practices of the more widely-acknowledged groups of Christians. The quotation I came across seems to indicate that in the early days, at least, some Mormons considered themselves categorically different from the Christians who surrounded them. It wouldn't be an unusual situation, for related groups to focus on their differences to the point at which they don't want to share a name. You see it in political and cultural, ethnic or national groups as well. "No, of course we aren't members of Group Y! You are truly mistaken if you think our language, culture and political beliefs are like theirs! Oh, I admit they spring from a common root, millenia ago, but they have only a miserable illiterate and corrupt version, and they're full of imperialist tendencies and lack proper awareness of the importance of power dynamics and identity politics. We're Group Z, the REAL inheritors of the true vision of our Great Leader." SignatureCheryl >>> I'd heard a long time ago from a non-Mormon who had lived in Utah that >>> at one time, Mormons didn't consider themselves Christian, and it was [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >"No, of course we aren't members of Group Y! You are truly mistaken if >you think our language, culture and political beliefs are like theirs! That's a very big "if" there. >Oh, I admit they spring from a common root, millenia ago, but they have >only a miserable illiterate and corrupt version, and they're full of >imperialist tendencies and lack proper awareness of the importance of >power dynamics and identity politics. Tut, tut. let's have some religious tolerance here... We're Group Z, the REAL inheritors of the true vision of our Great Leader. Almost all religions think that way, including the Roman Catholics. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * <snip> >Er, under what definition of "Christian" are Mormons Christians? Evan states it more technically and probably more correctly, but by the definition they adhere to Christian traditions, as I do, even though I am an atheist. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE ... > > Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the Nicene Creed? (With or > > without the _filioque_.) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mainstream than those mentioned) that don't disagree with it but don't > actually use it. I've talked to a couple of believers in homegrown forms of Christianity around here. One told me his church doesn't interpret the Bible--they just follow what it says (!). I think they're really / solo scriptura/, and I wouldn't be surprised if they have some disagreements with the Nicene Creed. (I'm out of touch with him and can't check.) My impression is that Mennonites don't use the Nicene Creed. See http://www.bethelks.edu/mennonitelife/2005June/weaver.php and http://www.bethelks.edu/mennonitelife/2005Sept/dewey.php The latter article argues for respect for the Nicene Creed instead of what the author implies is the usual Mennonite rejection of it "as an illegitimate statement of legislated power to be used to jockey the loyalties of everyday Christians in the direction of imperial might." -- Jerry Friedman >>> Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal >>> ('catholic') vocation. Sure, many of them did have one, but not as [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > mainstream than those mentioned) that don't disagree with it but don't > actually use it. I'm pretty sure that Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses and Christian Scientists are not Christians. I'm not sure about Seventh Dayers. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal >>>> ('catholic') vocation. Sure, many of them did have one, but not as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'm pretty sure that Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses and Christian > Scientists are not Christians. I'm not sure about Seventh Dayers. Mormons, at least, are pretty sure that they are. I'm less sure about Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists. The Seventh-Day Adventist's page on "What Adventists Believe" begins "As a Christian church", so I'd say that they consider themselves to be. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |As the judge remarked the day that 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | he acquitted my Aunt Hortense, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |To be smut |It must be ut- kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |Terly without redeeming social (650)857-7572 | importance. | Tom Lehrer http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ ***Three newsgroups, ignored in this post.*** <snip> >I'm pretty sure that Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses and Christian >Scientists are not Christians. I'm not sure about Seventh Dayers. An interesting question, for sure, but who the hell drew in, and keeps drawing in, the groups, sci.math, sci.physics and sci.astro to our English language group? God knows there are already enough legitimate AUE and AEU posts to chew on every day without these additional posters making their "contributions", many of which have nothing to do with English language usage. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > > Hatunen wrote (23-02-2010 22:47): > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the Nicene Creed? (With or > without the _filioque_.) Not at all. The Nicene creed was explicitly designed to advocate a Trinitarian position and to brand non-Trinitarian sects (the Arians in particular) as heretics. It quite intentionally defines one subset of Christianity (and not every Trinitarian sect uses the Nicene Creed-- Quakers, for instance, explicitly reject using any creed). Some examples of modern-day non-Trinitarians, who would reject the key Nicene doctrinal tenets: USA: The Adventists (not just Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day, but also Christadelphians, Church of God, etc) and the Oneness Pentecostals China: True Jesus Church and many others (pretty much every Chinese protestant sect doesn't use the Nicene creed) Africa: Apostolic Church of Ethiopia Ireland: Christian Conventions Russia: Doukhobors, Molokans Switzerland, Italy, Germany and surrounding areas: the Friends of Man Sweden: Swedenborgians North and South America: Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus Phillipines: Iglesia ni Cristo There are plenty of others, too. Some of those have only a few tens of thousands of members (Molokans); others, like the AAFCJ, True Jesus Church, Iglesia ni Cristo, and Apostolic Church of Ethiopia have a million members or more. Many famous devout Christians (e.g. Isaac Newton, John Locke) drew from Arian-inspired faiths such as the Polish Brethren and would certainly not believe in the Nicene Creed. On Feb 24, 3:27 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Hatunen wrote (23-02-2010 22:47): > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Some examples of modern-day non-Trinitarians, who would reject the key > Nicene doctrinal tenets: Then they are, by definition, not Christians. The wannabes don't get to say who is a member of the club; the gatekeepers do. > USA: The Adventists (not just Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day, but > also Christadelphians, Church of God, etc) and the Oneness [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > from Arian-inspired faiths such as the Polish Brethren and would > certainly not believe in the Nicene Creed.- > On Feb 24, 3:27 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Then they are, by definition, not Christians. I _thought_ Evan was being over-optimistic when he assumed your question above wasn't question-begging. > The wannabes don't get to say who is a member of the club; the > gatekeepers do. ... Despite which you pronounced that the Jews for Jesus aren't Jews. Try this opposing view from Chabad: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/691677/jewish/I-was-born-Jewish-bu t-I-was-baptized-Am-I-still-Jewish.htm or http://tinyurl.com/ye37y8b -- Jerry Friedman > Despite which you pronounced that the Jews for Jesus aren't Jews. Try > this opposing view from Chabad: > > http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/691677/jewish/I-was-born-Jewish-bu t-I-was-baptized-Am-I-still-Jewish.htm > > or http://tinyurl.com/ye37y8b There are at least a few Christians (AFAICT from the subset with "Levitican" inclinations: anti-gay, for example) who think that people of Jewish ancestry who are also Christians still need to be circumcised (even though St Paul said that Christians did not need this) because Jewish-Christians are subject to the old *and* new covenants (by inheritance and by baptism or faith, respectively). SignatureTaken on the whole however this is a fine disc and a good example of the current pop scene attempting to break out of its vulgarisms and sometimes downright obscene derivative hogwash. (Julian Stone-Mason B.A., 1972) > > Despite which you pronounced that the Jews for Jesus aren't Jews. Try > > this opposing view from Chabad: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > this) because Jewish-Christians are subject to the old *and* new > covenants (by inheritance and by baptism or faith, respectively). A friend of mine of Christian ancestry is a follower of Yeshua (he prefers that to "Christian") who also tries to follow (most) of the Hebrew Bible, but I'm still confused about this movement. I'd heard of "Hebraic Christians" and "Torah-submissive Christians", but "Levitican" is new to me. A sign for the "Holy Fire Hebraic Center" has appeared in front of a building I pass on my commute. It appears to be for Hebraic Christians. http://www.holyfirecc.com/ I'll have to mention that to the friend who thought it was for northern New Mexican crypto-Jews (though they may well be particularly welcomed). Is there any linguistic justification for their odd spelling of "Yeshua" in "Yahshua is the Torah"? -- Jerry Friedman > > > Despite which you pronounced that the Jews for Jesus aren't Jews. Try > > > this opposing view from Chabad: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > northern New Mexican crypto-Jews (though they may well be particularly > welcomed). the historical Jewish Christians were also a varied lot. some believed in the Virgin Birth, but the Ebionites did not, saying that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary, by ordinary conjugal relations. we know that about them and about others mostly from the polemics against them. but some are documented to have survived into the Islamic era, in muslim lands. one sect had a leader who declared himself a prophet and also recognized Muhammad as Prophet of the Arabs. BTW they were rebellious and Muslims did not recognize them as muslims, even though they were able to recite the Shahada: "There is no god except God and Muhammad is his Messanger". > Is there any linguistic justification for their odd spelling of > "Yeshua" in "Yahshua is the Torah"? yes and no. ye:*sh*u:(a)3 (Iesous in Greek and in the LXX) is a contraction of yo:*sh*u:(a)3 or y&hu:*sh*u:(a) (as Ie:sous in the LXX), yo: and y&hu: being abbreivations of the yahweh <yhwh>. ya: <yh> is another contraction, though AFAIK *ya:*sh*u:(a)3 is not attested in the Old Testament. from "the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible" << Jesus Christ ... The Englsih form of th eword goes back to Latin (Iesus) which transliterates the Greek; but the original Hebrew form was Joshua or more fully Yehoshuah ("Yahweh is salvation" or "... saves" or "... will save"), which Matthew (1:21) found especially significant, ... > -- > Jerry Friedman > > > > Despite which you pronounced that the Jews for Jesus aren't Jews. Try > > > > this opposing view from Chabad: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > they were able to recite the Shahada: "There is no god except God and > Muhammad is his Messanger". there are varied theories that they influenced Muhammad, some theories being scholarly, others crackpot or bordering so. in a scholarly article, in BSOAS, F. de Blois, a distinguished orientalist, notes the identity of the name in Classical Arabic (which also survives in Maltese) naSra:niyy pl. naSa:ra" and Nazorenes. although the original name for Christians (found in the NT), it was later used for a group of Jewish Christians, the Elchasites. he also notes certain beliefs attributed to Christians in the Qur'an, like the odd Trinity of God, Jesus and Mary, as being attested for the Elchasites. he also notes that the food of "the People of the Book" (Jews and Christians) is permissable for Muslims, although mainstream Christianity allows the eating of pork (specifically prohibited in the Qur'an) and most Christaisn are well known for consuming it. (Followup-To set to alt.usage.english only.) >the historical Jewish Christians were also a varied lot. some believed >in the Virgin Birth, but the Ebionites did not, saying that Jesus was >the son of Joseph and Mary, by ordinary conjugal relations. I like to think that the birth of the child was probably a result of adulterous conjugation, and that Mary managed to sell the divine-impregnation idea to her gullible husband to save her marriage. Little could she have known that her desperate subterfuge could eventually lead to such horrors as the Inquisition befalling mankind. (Bob Cunningham, Fellow Traveler of Atheists for Jesus.) SignatureBob Cunningham, Southern California, USA. Western American English > > > > Despite which you pronounced that the Jews for Jesus aren't Jews. Try > > > > this opposing view from Chabad: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > of "Hebraic Christians" and "Torah-submissive Christians", but > > "Levitican" is new to me. ... > the historical Jewish Christians were also a varied lot. some believed > in the Virgin Birth, but the Ebionites did not, saying that Jesus was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and also recognized Muhammad as Prophet of the Arabs. BTW they were > rebellious After being conquered? > and Muslims did not recognize them as muslims, even though > they were able to recite the Shahada: "There is no god except God and > Muhammad is his Messanger". ... All my certainties are being overturned. > > Is there any linguistic justification for their odd spelling of > > "Yeshua" in "Yahshua is the Torah"? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is another contraction, though AFAIK *ya:*sh*u:(a)3 is not attested in > the Old Testament. ... Thanks, very interesting. I'd say that's close enough. -- Jerry Friedman > > > > > Despite which you pronounced that the Jews for Jesus aren't Jews. Try > > > > > this opposing view from Chabad: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > After being conquered? it was in Persia, which wasn't Jewish before either! the uprising was either between 685-705 or more probably between 744-750. initially, the Jews welcomed the Arab-Muslim conquest, since it meant the end of Roman rule in Palestine, and they got the right to Jerusalem. Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition al- `Īsāwiyya , a Jewish sect, the followers of Abū `Īsā al-Iṣfahānī [q.v.], also known as `Obhadya and `Obhedel. The sect is also referred to as the Iṣfahāniyya. Abū `Īsā was the leader of a Jewish uprising, which occurred either in the reign of the Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān, as is reported by the Ḳaraite author al-Ḳirḳisānī, or in the reign of the last Umayyad caliph as is stated by Shahrastānī (followed on grounds of general probability by I. Friedlaender). On the available evidence no definitive solution can be given to this chronological problem. Abū `Īsā claimed to be a prophet (nabī: al- Ḳirḳisānī) and, as Shahrastānī puts it, one of the five messengers (rusul) of the expected Messiah ( al-masīḥ al- muntaẓar), charged by God with the deliverance of the Children of Israel. Al-Bīrūnī too refers to his describing himself as a messenger of the Messiah ( al-Āthār al-Bāḳiya, ed. E. Sachau, 15). Shahrastānī also mentions that Abū ʿĪsā considered that “the missionary” ( dāʿī ; it may be legitimate to consider that he referred to himself) could be regarded as, in a sense, identical to the Messiah, a conception reminiscent of the doctrines of certain extremist Shīʿī sects. There can be hardly any doubt, however, that Hadassi's statement that he put forward the claim to be the Messiah is due to a misapprehension. In proof of his prophethood, his partisans adduced the fact, that, in spite of being illiterate ( ummī , a word used by Muḥammad), he produced books and scriptural scrolls (muṣḳaf). At the head of his followers he joined battle with soldiers of the Caliphate and was killed (or as his followers reported, vanished in the cleft of a rock). The number of his followers (who were few to begin with) dwindled constantly. In Ḳirḳisanī's time (4th/10th century) there were approximately twenty in Damascus and possible also a few in Iṣfahān. Those who were personally known to Ibn Ḥazm were probably not members of the sect in the strict sense of the word. According to Ḳirḳisānī, Yūdghān, who was regarded by his followers the Yūdghān(iyya) as the Messiah, was reported to have been a disciple of Abū `Īsā. Abū `Īsā taught (in common with other Jewish sects, for instance, the Mūshkāniyya, said to stem from the Yūdghāniyya) that Jesus and Muḥammad were true prophets, each of whom was delegated to bring a distinctive law to a community of his own—in the case of Muḥammad to the Arabs. But in spite of their prophethood, the observance of the Mosaic law continued to be incumbent upon the Jews. (In consequence of this thesis Muslim theologians such as al-Bāḳillānī and ʿAbd al-Ḳāhir al- Baghdādī discussed the question whether the ʿĪsāwiyya, who believed in the prophethood of Muḥammad and whose beliefs authorized them, according to Baghdādī, to profess the shahāda , could be regarded as Muslims; their answer was negative). Al-Ḳirḳisānī mentions that Abū ʿĪsā promulgated a prohibition against drinking wine and eating meat and Shahrastānī speaks of his forbidding the eating of any animate being. He also prohibited divorce. Friedlaender finds points of similarity between the `Īsāwiyya and Shīʿī sects and to some extent his remarks may be valid (see also above), but they do not account for the strange fact that on the one hand Abū ʿĪsā showed great regard for the rabbinical interpretation and observance of the law (and in consequence the Rabbanites allowed the members of their community to intermarry with the `Īsāwiyya: al- Ḳirḳisānī, i, 52) and that, on the other hand, Abū ʿĪsā acknowledged the prophethood of Jesus and Muḥammad. A possible explanation might be that the ʿĪsāwiyya stemmed from Jewish Christians, i.e., from a community which believed in the validity of Mosaic law and considered Jesus as a prophet. For some members of such a community the acknowledgement of the prophethood of Muḥammad after the advent of Islam need not have presented insuperable theological difficulties. The existence of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem at the time of Muʿāwiya is attested by contemporary evidence. Ibn Ḥazm's statement, contradicted by other sources, that the `Īsāwiyya believed that Jesus was a prophet sent to the Children of Israel, would, if accepted as correct, reinforce this hypothesis. ... Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition Abū `Īsā al- Iṣfahānī , Jewish pretender to the title of the Messiah under the Umayyad ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān, or according to others under Marwān II. The most noteworthy of his doctrines was his acknowledgment of the validity—for the non-Jews—of Islam and Christianity. He was killed in a battle against the Muslims; the sect, called `Īsawiyya, survived into the 10th century A. D. > > and Muslims did not recognize them as muslims, even though > > they were able to recite the Shahada: "There is no god except God and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > -- > Jerry Friedman >> There are at least a few Christians (AFAICT from the subset with >> "Levitican" inclinations: anti-gay, for example) who think that people [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of "Hebraic Christians" and "Torah-submissive Christians", but > "Levitican" is new to me. It's certainly not an official term! John Scalzi made it up to describe an entire class of self-identified "Christians" who are not Christian at all, in the sense that they don't follow the actual teachings of Christ in any meaningful way. Rather these people nod toward Christ in a cursory fashion on their way to spend time in the bloodier books of the Bible (which tend to be found in the Old Testament), using the text selectively as a support for their own hates and prejudices, using the Bible as a cudgel rather than a door. That being the case, I suggest we stop calling these people Christians and start calling them something that befits their faith, inclinations and enthusiasms. I say we call them Leviticans, after Leviticus, the third book of the Old Testament, famous for its rules, and also the home of the passages most likely to be thrown out by Leviticans to justify their intolerance (including, in recent days, against gays and lesbians -- Leviticus Chapter 18, Verse 22: "Thou shalt not not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination"). http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/002675.html SignatureNo right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution. I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be prevented. [Whitfield Diffie] > I say we call them Leviticans, after Leviticus, the third book of > the Old Testament, famous for its rules, and also the home of the > passages most likely to be thrown out by Leviticans to justify > their intolerance (including, in recent days, against gays and > lesbians -- Leviticus Chapter 18, Verse 22: "Thou shalt not not lie > with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination"). That's a good illustration of the importance of punctuation. If you swap the comma and the semicolon - which look much alike to me these days - you get a very different meaning. I assume that the double negative was a transcription error. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> I say we call them Leviticans, after Leviticus, the third book of >> the Old Testament, famous for its rules, and also the home of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the comma and the semicolon - which look much alike to me these days - > you get a very different meaning. Hmm. It makes you wonder about ancient MSS that had much less punctuation than we are used to today. > I assume that the double negative was a transcription error. Yes, I think it dropped in from the Adulterers' Bible. SignatureCivilization is a race between catastrophe and education. [H G Wells] > >> There are at least a few Christians (AFAICT from the subset with > >> "Levitican" inclinations: anti-gay, for example) who think that people [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Christian at all, in the sense that they don't follow the actual > teachings of Christ in any meaningful way. There are several big classes of such people. > Rather these people nod > toward Christ in a cursory fashion on their way to spend time in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/002675.html I say we don't call them that. For one thing, some of the people he's talking about might benefit from reading 19:9-18 as well as the passage forbidding homosexuality. For another, there are a few Christians who follow more than that from Leviticus--at least some of the dietary laws, for example. -- Jerry Friedman > I say we don't call them that. For one thing, some of the people > he's talking about might benefit from reading 19:9-18 "Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself"? I dunno. Sounds pretty radical. SignatureEvan 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/ >> I say we don't call them that. For one thing, some of the people >> he's talking about might benefit from reading 19:9-18 > > "Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself"? I dunno. Sounds pretty > radical. I tried that. She slapped me. SignatureSkitt (AmE) Oh, no ... >>> I say we don't call them that. For one thing, some of the people >>> he's talking about might benefit from reading 19:9-18 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I tried that. She slapped me. You were doing her wrong. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> I say we don't call them that. For one thing, some of the people >>> he's talking about might benefit from reading 19:9-18 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I tried that. She slapped me. You've lucky *he* didn't. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> I say we don't call them that. For one thing, some of the people >>> he's talking about might benefit from reading 19:9-18 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I tried that. She slapped me. I gather loving her the way you love yourself didn't appeal to her. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * [about Scalzi's term "Leviticans"] >> I say we call them Leviticans, after Leviticus, the third book of >> the Old Testament, famous for its rules, and also the home of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I say we don't call them that. OK, other ideas? > For one thing, some of the people he's > talking about might benefit from reading 19:9-18 as well as the > passage forbidding homosexuality. For another, there are a few > Christians who follow more than that from Leviticus--at least some of > the dietary laws, for example. Some do, but most (AFAICT) of the anti-gay ones don't, hence the "God Hates Shrimp" parody. http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/ SignatureOh, I am just a student, sir, and I only want to learn But it's hard to read through the rising smoke of the books that you want to burn [Phil Ochs] >> For one thing, some of the people he's >> talking about might benefit from reading 19:9-18 as well as the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/ Or, as the graffito says on True Blood, "God Hates Fangs". SignatureDavid >>> For one thing, some of the people he's >>> talking about might benefit from reading 19:9-18 as well as the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Or, as the graffito says on True Blood, "God Hates Fangs". Human blood must be double treif. SignatureClassical Greek lent itself to the promulgation of a rich culture, indeed, to Western civilization. Computer languages bring us doorbells that chime with thirty-two tunes, alt.sex.bestiality, and Tetris clones. (Stoll 1995) >>>> For one thing, some of the people he's >>>> talking about might benefit from reading 19:9-18 as well as the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Human blood must be double treif. "Boy, have you got the wrong vampire!" SignatureMike. > [about Scalzi's term "Leviticans"] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > OK, other ideas? "Christians who ignore Christianity except the parts they enjoy, many of which involve hating people"? Mutatis mutandis for intolerant members of other religions. -- Jerry Friedman > [about Scalzi's term "Leviticans"] > >>> I say we call them Leviticans >>> http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/002675.html >> >> I say we don't call them that. > > OK, other ideas? Fundie wacko scum? God damned f.cking fundie wacko scum? Too long? Fuckos (FUndie waCKO Scum)? SignatureHi, I'm Gary Cooper, but not the Gary Cooper that's dead. > Is there any linguistic justification for their odd spelling of > "Yeshua" in "Yahshua is the Torah"? No. The Aramaic form (and hence presumably what Jesus's buddies called him) is Yeshua`; the Hebrew form is Yehosua` (Anglicized, via h-less Greek, as Joshua). > There are at least a few Christians (AFAICT from the subset with > "Levitican" inclinations: anti-gay, for example) who think that people > of Jewish ancestry who are also Christians still need to be > circumcised (even though St Paul said that Christians did not need > this) because Jewish-Christians are subject to the old *and* new > covenants (by inheritance and by baptism or faith, respectively). St Paul might have said that, and I suppose that his opinions did eventually win the day; but the pro-Jesus faction believed that you couldn't be a Christian unless you were first a circumcised Jew. From their point of view, the "Jews for Jesus" are the only legitimate remaining Christians. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > On Feb 24, 3:27 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > The wannabes don't get to say who is a member of the club; the > gatekeepers do. FWIW, after looking at Merriam-Webster, the OED, and Wikipedia, all of the above seem to fit squarely within the definition of Christianity. I'll certainly state my biases ahead of time, and say that although I was raised in the Catholic tradition all of the churches I described seem to sit clearly within the bounds of what "Christian" means--even when used by Catholic priests. I intentionally tried to avoid any faiths where I thought there was even a remote chance of controversy (e.g. Mormonism, Jews for Jesus, Unitarians, etc). I'd suggest that if you actually have a definition of Christianity that excludes Quakers, Adventists, the various Apostolic Churches and Churches of Christ, Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the like that you should state it and explain why it's superior to what most recognized lexicographers have settled on. [...] > I'd suggest that if you actually have a definition of Christianity > that excludes Quakers, Adventists, the various Apostolic Churches and > Churches of Christ, Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the like that you > should state it and explain why it's superior to what most recognized > lexicographers have settled on. Your general point is right, but note that you don't have to be a Christian to be a Quaker. Muslims, Jews, pagans, whoever. I've read that about of a quarter of British Quakers are atheists. SignatureMike. On Feb 25, 1:27 am, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Feb 24, 3:27 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > should state it and explain why it's superior to what most recognized > lexicographers have settled on.- Lexicographers have the power to determine who is a Christian? > On Feb 25, 1:27 am, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Lexicographers have the power to determine who is a Christian? No. They do attempt to catalog what English-speakers* mean by words. Dictionaries are normally a pretty good starting point when attempting to figure out what a word means. They are occasionally wrong--hence my asking for your alternative and an explanation as to why it's a better definition. FWIW, the Catholic resources I've looked at don't seem to limit their use of "Christian" to those who believe in the Nicene Creed. Hardon's _Modern Catholic Dictionary_ says: Christian: A person who is baptized. A professed Christian also believes in the essentials of the Christian faith, notably in the Apostles' Creed. (and continues on to define a "Catholic Christian") *Or speakers of whatever language they're cataloging On Feb 25, 10:51 am, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > FWIW, the Catholic resources I've looked at don't seem to limit their > use of "Christian" to those who believe in the Nicene Creed. Hardon's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > believes in the essentials of the Christian faith, notably in the > Apostles' Creed. The Apostles' Creed is a later document. I've never noticed it included in a Missal. (But then, I haven't looked at a Missal in decades.) It's the creed usually said in Protestant churches (and also at Episcopal Morning Prayer) when a creed is recited. > On Feb 25, 10:51 am, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > decades.) It's the creed usually said in Protestant churches (and also > at Episcopal Morning Prayer) when a creed is recited. Later than what? It's earlier than the Nicene Creed. SignatureCheryl > On Feb 25, 10:51 am, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > decades.) It's the creed usually said in Protestant churches (and also > at Episcopal Morning Prayer) when a creed is recited. Historically, the content of the Apostle's Creed predates the Nicene Creed (its credos are found, for instance, in the writings of Irenaeus c. 200 AD, over a century before the Council of Nicea), though the precise wording used by modern churches has changed some since then. The Protestant version that you refer to, used by Episcopalean Churches among others, is a _much_ later formulation--it's also obviously not what the Catholic dictionary I quoted has in mind. The exact timeline is largely irrelevant to the discussion*, though. The salient point is that even the Catholic Church considers those who are baptized and believe in the tenets of the Apostle's Creed to be Christians--belief in the stricter Nicene dogma isn't a mandatory hallmark of Christianity even in the eyes of the Church. Even that is a sidetrack, though, since the Church (and Christians in general) aren't the final arbiters of what "Christian" means in English--but I figured it was a useful way of demonstrating that even the largest Christian denomination doesn't consider the Nicene Creed as an acid test for Christianity. *It's only useful for the historical context that drove the content of each message--the Apostle's Creed was formulated partially as a reaction to Gnosticism, and affirms non-Gnostic beliefs (notably,it specifies that God created the Earth). The Nicene Creed was formulated as a reaction to Arianism, and adds a whole additional layer of dogma in an attempt to distinguish Nicene believers as strict Trinitarians. On Feb 26, 10:10 am, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Feb 25, 10:51 am, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Churches among others, is a _much_ later formulation--it's also > obviously not what the Catholic dictionary I quoted has in mind. Then perhaps you should say what you mean by "the Apostles' Creed" if you don't mean the Apostles' Creed. > The exact timeline is largely irrelevant to the discussion*, though. > The salient point is that even the Catholic Church considers those who [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > layer of dogma in an attempt to distinguish Nicene believers as strict > Trinitarians. > On Feb 26, 10:10 am, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Then perhaps you should say what you mean by "the Apostles' Creed" if > you don't mean the Apostles' Creed. _I_ don't mean anything by the Apostle's Creed--it's the Catholic dictionary that uses "the Apostle's Creed" in the quoted definition, and (being Catholic) what they mean is quite clearly not a Protestant formulation. It ought to be pretty obvious that Catholics generally mean the Catholic version of the Apostle's Creed when they use that phrase. Once again you have not addressed the key point about the Nicene Creed and have instead dwelt on a tangent. On Feb 26, 5:33 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Feb 26, 10:10 am, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Once again you have not addressed the key point about the Nicene Creed > and have instead dwelt on a tangent. That's just Peter's way of conceding you were right. -- Jerry Friedman On Feb 26, 6:33 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Feb 26, 10:10 am, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Once again you have not addressed the key point about the Nicene Creed > and have instead dwelt on a tangent.- Did you have a "key point"? For some reason you deflected the discussion to the Apostles' Creed, which you claim exists in Catholic- land as something other than the familliar Apostles' Creed. > On Feb 26, 6:33 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Did you have a "key point"? Yes: that the Nicene Creed is not used by all Christian churches. > For some reason you deflected the > discussion to the Apostles' Creed The introduction of the definition which mentioned the Apostle's Creed was completely responsive to the original question that involved me in this thread, not a deflection: The discussion was about whether there are Christians who don't use the Nicene creed. I'm sure there are, and gave examples of Christians who may believe in the Nicene dogma but not use the creed (e.g. most Quakers--Mike Lyle pointed out that not all Quakers are Christians) and also of Christians who don't believe in the dogma of the Nicene creed at all (a long list, still available upthread). At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians". I offered English definitions of "Christian", which include no mention of the Nicene Creed or Trinitarianism. I also offered a Catholic dictionary definition as one example of how even the largest Christian denominations don't require belief in the Nicene creed to fall within their definition of "Christian": according to that Catholic definition, a Christian is one who a) is baptized and b) believes in the Apostle's Creed. For some reason, you then completely avoided the core point (that the definition of Christian used doesn't include any reference to the Nicene creed) and stated that the BCP version of the Apostle's Creed is newer than the Nicene creed. I responded saying that the timeline is irrelevant, but also pointing out that the BCP version wasn't relevant to the definition of "Christian" cited. You then asked what I meant by the Apostle's Creed, to which I replied that _I_ don't mean anything by it, I was citing a definition from a Catholic dictionary and so the relevant question is what _they_ mean by it (which is obviously the Catholic form). You still have no offered any definition of Christian, let alone explained why it might be a superior definition to that given in Webster's, or the OED, or a Catholic dictionary; in the absence of that, I'm not sure that there's anything left to debate regarding the original question. > which you claim exists in Catholic- > land as something other than the familliar Apostles' Creed. I find your use of "familiar" here somewhat baffling. Do you mean more familiar to you? If so, I'm not sure what the relevance is. If not, the Catholic version is both older than and used by more people than the Book of Common Prayer version, so in general there's no reason to assume that it isn't the "familiar" version to most people. I'd personally avoid using that term, though, unless I were specifically discussing familiarity with respect to some group. The context should make the version used pretty obvious, anyway. A Catholic dictionary is generally going to refer to Catholic forms, unless they're specifically discussing other faiths. If someone quoted the Episcopalian dictionary, the Apostle's Creed would generally refer to the BCP version. It's much like discussing the Bible--when a Catholic refers to the Bible, they're most likely referring to a book which includes the Book of Baruch (as one example). When an Episcopalian is speaking, they probably mean a different version from which Baruch is excluded. [sci.lang and aue only] On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:31:16 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:1cc7be61-86fa-4408-8963-88f383d4e5ba@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > Lexicographers have the power to determine who is a > Christian? Usage does, and lexicographers then report this usage. As you know. Brian Peter T. Daniels: > On Feb 24, 3:27 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The wannabes don't get to say who is a member of the club; the > gatekeepers do. Is that a tenable definition? Every time there's a schism both sides claim to be guardians of the truth and gatekeep the other out of the club (the club being Christianity, or the Party, or the IRA, or whatever), but both movements are "sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists". SignatureTrond Engen > > Hatunen wrote (23-02-2010 22:47): > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use theNicene Creed? (With or > without the _filioque_.) historically there were Jewish Christians, who regarded Jesus as a prophet in the Old Testament tradition, and there were the Aryans. but these are historical > Hatunen wrote (23-02-2010 22:47): > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > central structuring element. Notice the RC was never 'the Italian > Church' even when popes were italian for centuries long. The Anglicans did and do. There may have been that little disagreement with the Pope a few hundred years ago, but that doesn't mean we aren't part of the universal church, and haven't been preaching the fact from that day to this. I found it very confusing as a child that I was supposed to say every Sunday that I belonged to the catholic church, when I knew that the Catholic church was the one down the road some of my friends went to, so I asked about it and had it explained to me that we were part of the 'small-c catholic', meaning world-wide, universal church. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of the other Protestant churches also had the conviction that their bit of the universal church also had a universal vocation. But I agree with you that in common speech, at least in parts of the world where there are lots of Roman Catholics, people tend to refer to the 'Catholic church' and mean the 'Roman Catholic church'. There are, or have been within living memory, Anglicans who invariably use 'Roman Catholic Church' to refer to the followers of the Pope in Rome, because they (the Anglicans) refer to themselves as members of a Catholic church, and to use the term for the RCs was confusing. As I said, in my childhood, I wasn't taught this; but I was taught to distinguish the two groups with a capital or lower-case 'C'. SignatureCheryl > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:42:42 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy > Spirit." "One, holy, catholic, and apostolic" is from the Nicene Creed, which predates, or rather results from, the first heresy. And that is the non-name "catholic" meaning 'universal'. > "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. Are you going to write to all the churches in the UK with "St ____'s Roman Catholic Church" or "St ____'s R. C. Church" on their signs, newsletters, websites, etc., to tell them that they are wrong? (I think this is common in much of the USA too.) In any case, the description is useful, since several church organizations use 'Catholic' in their names, and 'Roman' clearly refers to the one with the HQ in Rome. (We could revive the old BL subject heading "Rome, Church of".) > In the tradition from which the Roman and the Greek Churches come, the > Church has no splitting qualifiers. It's just 'the Church'. 'Roman Church' [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > matter of wishing to be the only one, it's a religious matter. The > multiplicity of churches is anathema and downright sin. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they... > The Roman Church usually calls itself 'the Church', but is fond of > 'Catholic' for a variety of reasons, so 'the Catholic Church' is often used [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > catholics are fond of 'Catholic'. That doesn't mean the RC doesn't consider > itself orthodox, or that the EO don't consider themselves catholic. Nor does it mean that other churches can't consider themselves catholic too (typically they mean that they follow church traditions such as the episcopate, the historic creeds, and some form of the Real Presence). Some of them have "Catholic" in the name, some don't. (Note that the Old Catholic Church separated from Roman authority because the Vatican wouldn't send new bishops to the Netherlands even though the RC people there asked for them. The OCs didn't create the schism.) SignatureDo you know what they do to book thieves up at Santa Rita? http://www.shigabooks.com/indeces/bookhunter.html Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): >> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. > > Are you going to write to all the churches in the UK with "St ____'s > Roman Catholic Church" or "St ____'s R. C. Church" on their signs, > newsletters, websites, etc., to tell them that they are wrong? (I > think this is common in much of the USA too.) I doubt that that's their legal name where they have one. > In any case, the description is useful, since several church > organizations use 'Catholic' in their names, and 'Roman' clearly > refers to the one with the HQ in Rome. (We could revive the old BL > subject heading "Rome, Church of".) I didn't say it wasn't useful. I said it wasn't official, not technically sound concept that could have relevance towards what the ECC consider themselves to be. Why not 'Roman Church'? Isn't there any 'old catholic' church in Rome? In either case, all the other groups using 'catholic' in their names took care to qualify that 'catholic'. >> In the tradition from which the Roman and the Greek Churches come, the >> Church has no splitting qualifiers. It's just 'the Church'. 'Roman Church' [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Well, they would say that, wouldn't they... It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal and Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. To endorse the idea of multiple churches is like endorsing the idea of apartheid. Mainstream Protestants consider themselves part of the one Church, the Orthodox who are known for thinking everyone else is a heretic even agree (most of them) that any church is part of the one Church to the extent of its orthodox doctrine, and the RC holds a similar view. >> The Roman Church usually calls itself 'the Church', but is fond of >> 'Catholic' for a variety of reasons, so 'the Catholic Church' is often used [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > though the RC people there asked for them. The OCs didn't create the > schism.) That's not the whole story... the old catholics were always a small minority compared to even the dutch catholics. They decided to have their own hierarchy indenpendent from Rome. Rome had serious problems with keeping a hierarchy in the Netherlands due to persecution and Protestant-sponsored intrigue. Rome thought it better to just nominate a vicar and keep an underground church. The OC didn't think the same. The government rejoiced. It's a schism. Not heresy, a schism. > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): [...] >>> From the Church's point of view, there aren't >>> multiple churches. There's only one. To say that >>> there is more than one church is heresy. It's not a >>> matter of wishing to be the only one, it's a >>> religious matter. The multiplicity of churches is >>> anathema and downright sin. >> Well, they would say that, wouldn't they... > It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is > universal and Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. It's by no means clear that the historical figure actually founded *any* church, but even supposing that he did, there's no reason to think that its message is universal. > To endorse the idea of multiple churches is like > endorsing the idea of apartheid. Hardly; it's more a matter of 'whatever floats your boat'. [...] Brian > > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > founded *any* church, but even supposing that he did, > there's no reason to think that its message is universal. What, is it restricted to some specific culture(s)? Not applicable to other(s)? > > To endorse the idea of multiple churches is like > > endorsing the idea of apartheid. > > Hardly; it's more a matter of 'whatever floats your boat'. You're not listening. To endorse the idea of multiple churches is precisely like endorsing the idea of apartheid. On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:02:19 -0800 (PST), António Marques <entonio@gmail.com> wrote in <news:0c8b6c0c-594b-4407-9470-66ba79413e47@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): >> [...] >>>>> From the Church's point of view, there aren't >>>>> multiple churches. There's only one. To say that >>>>> there is more than one church is heresy. It's not a >>>>> matter of wishing to be the only one, it's a >>>>> religious matter. The multiplicity of churches is >>>>> anathema and downright sin. >>>> Well, they would say that, wouldn't they... >>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is >>> universal and Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. >> It's by no means clear that the historical figure actually >> founded *any* church, but even supposing that he did, >> there's no reason to think that its message is universal. > What, is it restricted to some specific culture(s)? Not > applicable to other(s)? Applicability is in the mind of the recipient, not a matter of fact, so it obviously isn't universally applicable. >>> To endorse the idea of multiple churches is like >>> endorsing the idea of apartheid. >> Hardly; it's more a matter of 'whatever floats your boat'. > You're not listening. > To endorse the idea of multiple churches is precisely like > endorsing the idea of apartheid. I heard you the first time. I think that the assertion is utter nonsense, at best. Brian > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:02:19 -0800 (PST), Ant nio Marques > <ento...@gmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Applicability is in the mind of the recipient, not a matter > of fact, so it obviously isn't universally applicable. What, so now universal health care isn't universal either? Besides which, the point is completely moot - did you read my 'Either...'? > >>> To endorse the idea of multiple churches is like > >>> endorsing the idea of apartheid. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I heard you the first time. I think that the assertion is > utter nonsense, at best. You don't even know what I meant by it. Think. You're a mathematician, it won't be hard. What can I be referring to with that comparison? On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:48:16 -0800 (PST), António Marques <entonio@gmail.com> wrote in <news:09ad53f7-db78-4c13-9164-3e14eb4d79ed@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:02:19 -0800 (PST), Ant nio Marques >> <ento...@gmail.com> wrote in >> <news:0c8b6c0c-594b-4407-9470-66ba79413e47@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> >> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>> Ant nio Marques wrote: >>>>> Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): >>>>>> On 2010-02-23, Ant nio Marques wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>>> From the Church's point of view, there aren't >>>>>>> multiple churches. There's only one. To say that >>>>>>> there is more than one church is heresy. It's not a >>>>>>> matter of wishing to be the only one, it's a >>>>>>> religious matter. The multiplicity of churches is >>>>>>> anathema and downright sin. >>>>>> Well, they would say that, wouldn't they... >>>>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is >>>>> universal and Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. >>>> It's by no means clear that the historical figure actually >>>> founded *any* church, but even supposing that he did, >>>> there's no reason to think that its message is universal. >>> What, is it restricted to some specific culture(s)? Not >>> applicable to other(s)? >> Applicability is in the mind of the recipient, not a matter >> of fact, so it obviously isn't universally applicable. > What, so now universal health care isn't universal either? Universal availability is not the same as universal applicability. > Besides which, the point is completely moot - did you read > my 'Either...'? Of course. It has no bearing on the point that I was originally making, which is that contrary to the implication of your either-or statement, there is no apparent connection between 'Christ's message is universal' and 'Christ did found one Church'. >>>>> To endorse the idea of multiple churches is like >>>>> endorsing the idea of apartheid. >>>> Hardly; it's more a matter of 'whatever floats your boat'. >>> You're not listening. >>> To endorse the idea of multiple churches is precisely like >>> endorsing the idea of apartheid. >> I heard you the first time. I think that the assertion is >> utter nonsense, at best. > You don't even know what I meant by it. [...] Quite possibly not. I *do*, however, know what it says. Brian > It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal and > Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. Now there's a new one: the first I've heard that Jesus founded or even wanted a church. SignatureRob Bannister >> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal and >> Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. > >Now there's a new one: the first I've heard that Jesus founded or even >wanted a church. I thought he delegated the job to Peter. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal and >>> Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. >> Now there's a new one: the first I've heard that Jesus founded or even >> wanted a church. > > I thought he delegated the job to Peter. I don't think so. I believe he did ask Peter and the others to keep on spreading the word, but I have seen no mention of churches, priests, buildings, vestments or choir boys in the New Testament. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal and >>>> Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >spreading the word, but I have seen no mention of churches, priests, >buildings, vestments or choir boys in the New Testament. Try Mt 16:17-18. SignatureMichael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> This sentence no verb. On Feb 26, 12:52 pm, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote: > In article <7uomssFvk...@mid.individual.net>, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> writes: > >>> Ant nio Marques wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Try Mt 16:17-18. The closest I see there is the word "build": 17And Jesus answering said to him, `Happy art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens. 18`And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it; (Young's Literal Translation) Note that "ecclesia" is sometimes mistranslated as "church"; in reality it meant "assembly"--the most well-known "ecclesia" prior to the writing of Matthew would have been the democratic gatherings of Athens, which went under that name. There's no reason to think that it meant anything like the organized hierarchy of the modern Church. On Feb 26, 2:30 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 12:52 pm, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Athens, which went under that name. There's no reason to think that > it meant anything like the organized hierarchy of the modern Church.- What the hell is "Young's Literal Translation"? Is that one of those misguided efforts to render every word of the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek the same way in English every time it appears? When was it done? > On Feb 26, 2:30 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > misguided efforts to render every word of the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek the > same way in English every time it appears? When was it done? It's a literal translation of the Bible, done in 1862. The particular credentials of Young's aren't important in this case, because plenty of other scholarly translations (e.g the 1997 version of the American Standard Version, Darby's) render the passage the same way, but more importantly because the word in question is easily verified as "εκκλησιαν" or "ecclesia" and you can easily research the history of that word yourself without having to rely on someone else's translation abilities; at the time of writing, it meant "assembly", and it wasn't until later that it acquired the second meaning of "church". On Feb 26, 6:45 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Feb 26, 2:30 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > and it wasn't until later that it acquired the second meaning of > "church".- But rather than answer Robert's question, you chose to obfuscate by quoting an incompetent and outmoded "literal" translation. > On Feb 26, 6:45 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > But rather than answer Robert's question, you chose to obfuscate by > quoting an incompetent and outmoded "literal" translation. It was a bit of a polemical post, yes, attempting to convey that the issue of translation is a significant one. My apologies for the opacity. That said, the particulars of the version are irrelevant (and modern versions like the 1997 version of the ASV use the same word)--you can find the word yourself and look at its historical meaning. On Feb 26, 9:11 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Feb 26, 6:45 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > versions like the 1997 version of the ASV use the same word)--you can > find the word yourself and look at its historical meaning.- "ASV"? The American Standard Version, which was a conservative reaction (ca. 1890) to the Revised Version, which was a very unfortunate English attempt (ca. 1880) to make the AV (or KJV) more "literal" in Young's sense, which managed to both take out the poetry and make the meaning harder to understand? > On Feb 26, 9:11 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > "literal" in Young's sense, which managed to both take out the poetry > and make the meaning harder to understand? The 1997 ASV is different from the original ASV--thing of it like the King James Version vs. the New King James Version. The names are similar, but the translations are different. > On Feb 26, 12:52 pm, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Athens, which went under that name. There's no reason to think that > it meant anything like the organized hierarchy of the modern Church. No, but it's the same word translated as "church" when used by Paul in his letters, e.g., to the church of God that is in Corinth [1 Cor. 1:2] the one who prophesies builds up the church [1 Cor. 14:19] our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea [Rom. 16:1] just as Christ also does the church [Ephes. 5:29] and, as far as I can tell, in the rest of the New Testament. So whatever the author of Matthew meant that Jesus wanted, it's presumably the same sort of organization that Paul and the author of Acts referred to. The OED cites the word "church" being used to mean The community or whole body of Christ's faithful people collectively; all who are spiritually united to Christ as 'Head of the Church' as well as A particular organized Christian society, considered either as the only true representative, or as a distinct branch, of the Church universal, separated by peculiarities of doctrine, worship, or organization, or confined to limits territorial or historical both to ca. 890. So I don't think that really counts as a "mistranslation". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |So when can we quit passing laws and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |raising taxes? When can we say of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |our political system, "Stick a fork |in it, it's done?" kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> writes: > > On Feb 26, 12:52 pm, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > and, as far as I can tell, in the rest of the New Testament. See Acts 19:32-41 for several places that it's translated as "assembly" in the NIV and KJV. As I said elsethread, my above note is overly polemical--I apologize for that. I mainly wanted to raise the question of translation. This is one of those places where word choice is pretty hotly debated in a lot of circles (see, e.g., http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0004.htm "Ecclesia: Church or Assembly?"), so claiming it as an example of what we currently mean by "church" appearing in the original is a matter that's in some dispute. But my use of "mistranslation" goes too far in the other direction. My apologies. >> "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> writes: >> > Note that "ecclesia" is sometimes mistranslated as "church"; in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > See Acts 19:32-41 for several places that it's translated as > "assembly" in the NIV and KJV. So when it refers to a specific group of people gathered together at a specific time, it's an "assembly", and when it refers to an organization, it's a "church". That's no different from the English word "church" sometimes being an organization and sometimes a building. > As I said elsethread, my above note is overly polemical--I apologize > for that. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > we currently mean by "church" appearing in the original is a matter > that's in some dispute. But clearly the use in Matthew can't really mean "assembly". At least, I can't get any sort of sensible reading for it. > But my use of "mistranslation" goes too far in the other direction. > My apologies. No problem. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Society in every state is a blessing, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |but government, even in its best Palo Alto, CA 94304 |state is but a necessary evil; in its |worst state, an intolerable one. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Thomas Paine (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal and >>>>> Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Try Mt 16:17-18. I wonder which word was used for "church", and did it mean "temple" or "house" or "society" or exactly what? SignatureRob Bannister > Ant nio Marques wrote: > > It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal and > > Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. > > Now there's a new one: the first I've heard that Jesus founded or even > wanted a church. 'Church' has many meanings. I don't know which one(s) you're thinking of. > > Ant nio Marques wrote: > > > It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 'Church' has many meanings. I don't know which one(s) you're thinking > of. In the KJV it's "Upon this Rock I found my church." "Tu es Petrus" and all that. There were in fact two rival churches already in the 1st century, one led by Paul in Rome (who was the more prolific writer) and one led by Peter and James the brother of Jesus in Jerusalem. >> Ant nio Marques wrote: >>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 'Church' has many meanings. I don't know which one(s) you're thinking > of. I can't think of one mentioned by Jesus, but I suppose priests are allowed to invent what He might have thought. SignatureRob Bannister >> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal and >> Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. > > Now there's a new one: the first I've heard that Jesus founded or even > wanted a church. This passage is generally interpreted that way: Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age." [Matthew 28:16--20, NRSV] SignatureOh, I do most of my quality thinking on the old sandbox. [Bucky Katt] >> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal >> and Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. > > Now there's a new one: the first I've heard that Jesus founded or even > wanted a church. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [Matt. 16:18, KJV] SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I need to get a new colander. My 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |old one has holes in it. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal >>> and Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail > against it. [Matt. 16:18, KJV] As I said in another post, what word is used for "church" and what did it mean at the time? I somehow doubt it meant bricks and mortar and costly raiment. SignatureRob Bannister > >>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal > >>> and Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it mean at the time? I somehow doubt it meant bricks and mortar and > costly raiment. I don't understand statements such as "Christ founded one Church," but I'm pretty sure it's not about bricks or mortar or ever gargoyles. -- Jerry Friedman >>>>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal >>>>> and Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > Jerry Friedman Although the "gates of hell" bit takes the reader straight back to buildings and possibly even gargoyles. I have difficulties anyway in understanding the image of gates prevailing. SignatureRob Bannister > >>>> Ant nio Marques wrote: > >>>>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > buildings and possibly even gargoyles. I have difficulties anyway in > understanding the image of gates prevailing. Metonymy? On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:07:03 +0800, Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in <news:7utmsqF9gU1@mid.individual.net> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > Although the "gates of hell" bit takes the reader straight > back to buildings and possibly even gargoyles. [...] Nah: sideless surcoats. [...] Brian António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt> writes: > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): >> On 2010-02-23, António Marques wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I doubt that that's their legal name where they have one. On what basis? If it's the name they put on their sign and on their web site, why would you assume that their "official" or "legal" name is something else? Would it give you any doubt if I were to point you to, say the articles of incorporation for "Our Mother of Sorrows Roman Catholic Parish - Tuscon": http://www.omosparish.org/DOT-ArtIncorp.pdf or the official latest annual financial report of "the Roman Catholic Dicoese of Brooklyn, NY": http://dioceseofbrooklyn.org/FinancialReport.aspx <URL:http://dioceseofbrooklyn.org/uploadedFiles/ About_The_Diocese_and_Our_Parishes/Diocesan_Administration/ Finance/AR%208-31-09%20Central%20Funds%20.pdf> SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A little government and a little luck 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |are necessary in life, but only a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fool trusts either of them. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > web site, why would you assume that their "official" or "legal" name > is something else? Based on all sorts of instances where that happens. Duh. (Your keyboard may be damaged. It inserted <"official"> and <"legal"> wehere you meant <official> and <legal>.) > Would it give you any doubt if I were to point you to, say the > articles of incorporation for "Our Mother of Sorrows Roman Catholic [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > About_The_Diocese_and_Our_Parishes/Diocesan_Administration/ > Finance/AR%208-31-09%20Central%20Funds%20.pdf> Those documents indicate that the RC sometimes refers to itself as 'Roman Catholic'. Maybe you missed it, but I did mention that in my original text (the one introduced by the very first sentences in this message). The fact that you sometimes refer to yourself using some name doesn't mean that that name is among your self-designations. The fact that you travel often to some town doesn't make it your home. >> > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (Your keyboard may be damaged. It inserted <"official"> and <"legal"> > wehere you meant <official> and <legal>.) No. I used quotation marks to indicate that I was quoting. You, in this case. >> Would it give you any doubt if I were to point you to, say the >> articles of incorporation for "Our Mother of Sorrows Roman Catholic [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > name doesn't mean that that name is among your self-designations. The > fact that you travel often to some town doesn't make it your home. These documents indicate that the institutions in question have official legal names that include the phrase "Roman Catholic". That is, it is their official self-designation, their legal name. The thing that you doubted was true and that you asserted wasn't the case. Anywhere. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Specifically, I'd like to debate 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |whether cannibalism ought to be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |grounds for leniency in murder, |since it's less wasteful. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Calvin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): >>> From the Church's point of view, there aren't multiple churches. There's >>> only one. To say that there is more than one church is heresy. It's not a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of the one Church to the extent of its orthodox doctrine, and the RC holds a > similar view. Yes, right. I misunderstood what you wrote. SignatureThe three-martini lunch is the epitome of American efficiency. Where else can you get an earful, a bellyful and a snootful at the same time? [Gerald Ford, 1978] > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I doubt that that's their legal name where they have one. Evan has produced some documentation for this, but in fairness I think I should point out that I was only talking about the situation in some English-speaking countries. I know that in France and Italy RC churches just have "Église St Pierre" (for example) on the sign, whereas others specify their denomination; I assume this is also the case in other countries where the RCC predominates (such as Portugal, I presume). SignatureTheir tags shall blink until the end of days. BoM 12:10 > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): >> On 2010-02-23, António Marques wrote: >> >>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. See below >> Are you going to write to all the churches in the UK with "St ____'s >> Roman Catholic Church" or "St ____'s R. C. Church" on their signs, >> newsletters, websites, etc., to tell them that they are wrong? (I >> think this is common in much of the USA too.) > > I doubt that that's their legal name where they have one. A quick search at the Charity Commission web site indicates that 'Roman Catholic' _is_ indeed included in the official name of such organisations, for example: 1087277 ROMAN CATHOLIC CATHEDRAL OF EAST ANGLIA PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT TRUST 500332 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AT BURTON ON TRENT 254871 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE PARISH OF STORRINGTON 254872 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH PROPERTY 512021 ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF HALLAM TRUST 232954 ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PORTSMOUTH CHAPTER FUND (BY DECREE OF POPE LEO XIII) 257204 ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PORTSMOUTH HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD 246871-88 ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PORTSMOUTH HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD SignaturePhilip Morten > On 2010-02-23, António Marques wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > newsletters, websites, etc., to tell them that they are wrong? (I > think this is common in much of the USA too.) I won't try to claim such signs don't exist, but I don't remember ever seeing one. The only way I can tell a church is RC is by the architecture and usually by the name (saint I've never heard of or long-winded way of saying Mary). SignatureRob Bannister >> On 2010-02-23, António Marques wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > architecture and usually by the name (saint I've never heard of or > long-winded way of saying Mary). I see a couple hundred thousand hits for "st * roman catholic church", limiting it to site:.au, but I don't see any that appear to be from web sites that belong to the churches themselves, so it may be far less common in Australia. It's certainly not uncommon in the US. There are also a lot of "Roman Catholic Diocese of <city>"es, the Roman Catholic High School in Philadelphia (and other schools), etc. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |He who will not reason, is a bigot; 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |he who cannot is a fool; and he who Palo Alto, CA 94304 |dares not is a slave. | Sir William Drummond kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > architecture and usually by the name (saint I've never heard of or > long-winded way of saying Mary). Do you only visit villages so small that they have only one church, or so homogeneous that they only have a sprinkling of Protestant churches? >> I won't try to claim such signs don't exist, but I don't remember ever >> seeing one. The only way I can tell a church is RC is by the >> architecture Doesn't work in the UK. All churches built before the reformation (the majority) were originally RC. >>> I won't try to claim such signs don't exist, but I don't remember ever >>> seeing one. The only way I can tell a church is RC is by the >>> architecture > > Doesn't work in the UK. All churches built before the reformation (the majority) > were originally RC. But they're not now - obviously, you can't tell them all by the architecture, especially since the styles have changed over time, but there is a tendency for a particular shade of red brick with white ornamentation and a particular shape that I can't describe, but which I can usually pick as RC. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. >>> Are you going to write to all the churches in the UK with "St ____'s [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Do you only visit villages so small that they have only one church, or > so homogeneous that they only have a sprinkling of Protestant churches? I think that's probably the key - the size and/or homogeneity of the location. I associate signs saying "St. So-and-So's Roman Catholic Church" with Toronto, which is a big enough and heterogeneous enough that it's a pretty good bet a good proportion of the population doesn't know which church is which. On the other hand, even in quite small towns, I've seen signs like "TownName United Church" or "St. So-and-So's Anglican Church", so that can't be the entire explanation. One of my families' old stories is about the time that my father's very devout uncle came to visit him in his new home, a small town with something like 4 or 5 churches serving various denominations. My father knew that although none of them were Methodist (the denomination to which his uncle, and, nominally at least, my father belonged) but that one of them was pretty close theologically. It took him about three tries to hit the right one - eliminating some, such as the Salvation Army and the Roman Catholic one by cues from the architecture. Fortunately, his uncle had a great sense of humour and no illusions about my father's religious practices. SignatureCheryl > >>> On 2010-02-23, Ant nio Marques wrote: > >>>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > towns, I've seen signs like "TownName United Church" or "St. So-and-So's > Anglican Church", so that can't be the entire explanation. Do these "small towns" even _have_ a popish parish? "United" means exactly that -- it's not a denomination, but a bunch of congregations that got together in order to survive at all despite the organization of their individual hierarchies. Baptists and Presbyterians are probably the easiest to assimilate to each other (no clerical hierarchy), then Methodists (whose "bishops" don't claim the apostolic succession of the Episcopalians and Catholics). So in a really big and socially stratified small village, you might find a Protestant church, an Episcopal one (that's the US term for the Anglican Communion, which more and more seems as though it soon won't be one), and a Catholic one. > One of my families' old stories is about the time that my father's very > devout uncle came to visit him in his new home, a small town with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Fortunately, his uncle had a great sense of humour and no illusions > about my father's religious practices. When we went on vacation during the school year I had to bring evidence of "church attendance" in order not to get penalized for missing Sunday School. The one I most remember was the Church of the Presidents, an Episcopal church very close to both the White House and our hotel (which was still the one presidents would occasionally turn up at, although that practice has recently become quite a burden on whichever church would be involved). Thus a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian congregation wasn't particularly particular in the 1950s/60s. >>>>> On 2010-02-23, Ant nio Marques wrote: >>>>>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Do these "small towns" even _have_ a popish parish? Sometimes, yes, although more commonly if they're THAT small, they'd have one or the other - some version of Protestant or Roman Catholic. My home province has close to 40% of the population reporting themselves in surveys as Roman Catholics, so even thought they're not entirely evenly sprinkled over the entire area, there are lots of small towns that are or are part of a Roman Catholic parish. Nowadays, they usually have to share a priest with several other small towns, but they still have their church. > "United" means exactly that -- it's not a denomination, but a bunch of > congregations that got together in order to survive at all despite the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Anglican Communion, which more and more seems as though it soon won't > be one), and a Catholic one. Ummm - in Canada, 'United Church' is a separate denomination, founded by Methodists, Presbyterians, and two other groups I tend to forget. http://www.united-church.ca/ Congregationalists. I thought there was a fourth (Church of Christ), but apparently not. Some Presbyterians remained independent - there are two Presbyterian churches in my city - but the United Church must be the largest and most mainstream of the Protestant churches in Canada. I was thoroughly confused for a time when I first encountered 'Unitarian ', as in 'Unitarian Universalism' and assumed that it was the same as the United Church. > When we went on vacation during the school year I had to bring > evidence of "church attendance" in order not to get penalized for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whichever church would be involved). Thus a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian > congregation wasn't particularly particular in the 1950s/60s. Particular enough to require proof of attendance, though! The only person who insisted I attend Sunday School at all was my mother, and I became so bored with it that I did a deal with her - I didn't have to go to Sunday School, and I wouldn't complain at all about attending the regular services, which at that time were in traditional language with no special children's talk or any other accommodation for children. I still think I got by far the better part of that deal, although it did leave me with a fondness for Victorian hymns. SignatureCheryl >>> I think that's probably the key - the size and/or homogeneity of the >>> location. I associate signs saying "St. So-and-So's Roman Catholic [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > be the largest and most mainstream of the Protestant churches in > Canada. I had assumed it was United Church of Christ, also a denomination, and one you see in the US. Wikipedia has an article on "United and Uniting Churches" which lists these. the United Methodist Church, and several others around the world (although many don't have "United" in their names, even in translation). SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The General Theorem of Usenet 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Information: If you really want to Palo Alto, CA 94304 |know the definitive answer, post |the wrong information, and wait for kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |someone to come by and explain in (650)857-7572 |excruciating detail precisely how |wrong you are. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Eric The Read > >>>>> On 2010-02-23, Ant nio Marques wrote: > >>>>>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > still think I got by far the better part of that deal, although it did > leave me with a fondness for Victorian hymns. There were awards at the end of the year based on attendance. > There were awards at the end of the year based on attendance. I don't think I attended Sunday School long enough to get one. SignatureCheryl > Ummm - in Canada, 'United Church' is a separate denomination, founded by > Methodists, Presbyterians, and two other groups I tend to forget. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Presbyterian churches in my city - but the United Church must be the > largest and most mainstream of the Protestant churches in Canada. I remember reading about this in one of Robertson Davies's novels. SignatureI don't know what they have to say It makes no difference anyway; Whatever it is, I'm against it! [Prof. Wagstaff] >> I think that's probably the key - the size and/or homogeneity of the >> location. I associate signs saying "St. So-and-So's Roman Catholic [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Do these "small towns" even _have_ a popish parish? "Popish"? Are you kidding? > "United" means exactly that -- it's not a denomination, but a bunch of > congregations that got together in order to survive at all despite the > organization of their individual hierarchies. Baptists and > Presbyterians are probably the easiest to assimilate to each other (no > clerical hierarchy), Don't US Presbyterians practise infant baptism? I would expect that to be a serious problem for Baptists. SignatureWhen Elaine turned 11, her mother sent her to train under Donald Knuth in his mountain hideaway. [XKCD 342] >>>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. >>> Are you going to write to all the churches in the UK with "St ____'s [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Do you only visit villages so small that they have only one church, or > so homogeneous that they only have a sprinkling of Protestant churches? I don't see what you are getting at. The only churches I notice that actually stipulate their denomination on their own signs are the ones that are neither Anglican nor Catholic. The latter appear to assume that anyone interested will know, and usually, they are right. As I said above, I won't try to claim that no "Roman Catholic" or "Church of England" signs exist - just that I haven't noticed them in the same way I notice Lutheran or whatever. SignatureRob Bannister > >>> On 2010-02-23, Ant nio Marques wrote: > >>>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. > >>> Are you going to write to all the churches in the UK with "St ____'s [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > England" signs exist - just that I haven't noticed them in the same way > I notice Lutheran or whatever. It's the Episcopalians who put up signs at the intersections for blocks around guiding passersby to their church -- with, of course, their familiar insignia. Do try to remember that we have no state religion -- there is no such thing as an "unmarked" (in the technical linguistic sense) church here. >>>>> On 2010-02-23, Ant nio Marques wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Do try to remember that we have no state religion -- there is no such > thing as an "unmarked" (in the technical linguistic sense) church here. I must say I had forgotten those little signs on street corners saying "Serbian Orthodox Church Sv. Nicola" or whatever - there are some pointing you to the nearest RC or Anglican or you-name-it church, but I thought we were discussing signs on the church grounds. SignatureRob Bannister >I don't see what you are getting at. The only churches I notice that >actually stipulate their denomination on their own signs are the ones [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >England" signs exist - just that I haven't noticed them in the same way >I notice Lutheran or whatever. Around tehse parts some churches do declare that they are Episcopalian. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 11:39): >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. I was just skimming through, but these screaming capitals stopped me dead in my tracks. I reached into my legal files and pulled out my "Geburts- und Taufschein / Rodný a křestní list", (Birth and Christening certificate). Under "Religion / Náboženství" is pre-printed "römisch-katholische / římsko-katolické". It's not in English but it is clearly stated in two different languages. What could be a clearer example of self-designation. pjk > In the tradition from which the Roman and the Greek Churches come, the > Church has no splitting qualifiers. It's just 'the Church'. 'Roman Church' [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > 'Latin', but even that is not very accurate. but it *is* accurate to say > that the ECC are 'non-Latin CC', even if it's somewhat unwieldy. > > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 11:39): > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > It's not in English but it is clearly stated in two different languages. > What could be a clearer example of self-designation. That sounds like it was issued by the Czechoslovak government, which assumed that there were no Protestants -- let alone any Jews -- born within its borders? (A church wouldn't be in a position to issue a birth certificate, would it?) I.e., not a _self_-designation. -- Does that mean Rimsky-Korsakov('s family) was Catholic? >>> Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 11:39): >>>>>>> The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > That sounds like it was issued by the Czechoslovak government, Oh common :-), how could any Czechoslovak government ever issue a bilingual birth certificates in German and Czech? As the certificate says on the top: the government at that time was "Protectorat Böhmen und Mähren / Protektorát Čechy a Morava". > which > assumed that there were no Protestants -- let alone any Jews -- born > within its borders? (A church wouldn't be in a position to issue a > birth certificate, would it?) I.e., not a _self_-designation. That is exactly what it is, a birth certificate issued by RC church, as it says "Gegeben vom Dekanal-Pfarr-Amte in xxxx am xxxx" (Pfarr crossed out) You will have to suspend your disbelieve. The Catholic birth/christening certificates were indeed issued by the church during the baptism. I only guess the civil government registry was updated behind the scene. There is an official stamp affixed with a registration number. That, I guess, confirms the registration in the government files. I know the various protestant churches who are also quite large had their own certificates. I don't know if some people belonging to various other religions had to go to a civil office to register the births of their children. I believe the births were registered this way in all countries of the old Austrian empire even after she was no more. Perhaps it was then done the same way in Germany. BTW, there was a certain stigma associated with having a government birth certificate. A the government certificates did not state any such detail, it was often taken to mean that the child or any of the parents were born out of wedlock. The church certificates record in great details marital statuses of parents and grandparents, their names, religions, birthdays, addresses, jobs and professions as well as the names, addresses and professions of godfathers, godmathers, and doctors present at the delivery. Certificates like that are real gold mines for people researching the genetical family trees. > -- Does that mean Rimsky-Korsakov('s family) was Catholic? Could that be originally an old Greek Orthodox family from Lebanon? :-) pjk > >> I was just skimming through, but these screaming capitals > >> stopped me dead in my tracks. I reached into my legal files and [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > scene. There is an official stamp affixed with a registration number. > That, I guess, confirms the registration in the government files. How do all those pastors know when and where the baby was born? Do they just take the mother's (or parents') word for it? > I know the various protestant churches who are also quite large > had their own certificates. I don't know if some people belonging [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the old Austrian empire even after she was no more. > Perhaps it was then done the same way in Germany. Biographies of notables up to maybe the middle of the 19th century rarely know the birthdates of their subjects, but only the baptismal dates -- which are usually assumed to be a week or so later. > BTW, there was a certain stigma associated with having > a government birth certificate. A the government certificates [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > addresses and professions of godfathers, godmathers, and > doctors present at the delivery. So, why didn't the government birth certificates record what would seem to be detalis useful to the governments? > Certificates like that are real gold mines for people > researching the genetical family trees. But not for birth dates. > > -- Does that mean Rimsky-Korsakov('s family) was Catholic? > > Could that be originally an old Greek Orthodox family from Lebanon? > :-) What does Korsakov indicate? >>>> I was just skimming through, but these screaming capitals >>>> stopped me dead in my tracks. I reached into my legal files and [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > How do all those pastors know when and where the baby was born? Do > they just take the mother's (or parents') word for it? Mother's, father's, godfather's, godmather's, all present relatives' and family friends', most of whom were well known to the pastor, who assumes that they would never lie, especially not on the holy ground. There is also a name of the delivering surgeon who I suppose produced some certification. I expect the surgeon to be a reasonably reliable witness. The christening took place seven days after my birth. Are you suggesting that some (often disinterested) government official would have more reliable sources of detail of the birth? Be it as it may, this all somewhat irrelevant. This is a follow up to the earlier post from some nutcase who was screaming: <quote> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE <unquote> The fact is that my birth certificate is an official document issued by the Roman Catholic Church in which they do exactly that. >> I know the various protestant churches who are also quite large >> had their own certificates. I don't know if some people belonging [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > rarely know the birthdates of their subjects, but only the baptismal > dates -- which are usually assumed to be a week or so later. BTW, mid 19th century and earlier is before the time I was thinking about, that is decades before 1918 and decades after. You are right, I have no paternal ancestors' birth dates from earlier centuries, just dates of baptism, death/burrial, and civil records of farming estate being nominally sold from the father to his son or daughter. >> BTW, there was a certain stigma associated with having >> a government birth certificate. A the government certificates [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > What does Korsakov indicate? To me, it doesn't immediately indicate anything obvious. If I had to guess, I'd say it could be derivation of користный = mercenary, selfish? Roman-Mercenary? Corsica? pjk On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:30:39 +1300, PaulJK <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in <news:hmd328$27q$1@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] >> What does Korsakov indicate? > To me, it doesn't immediately indicate anything obvious. It's from <корсак> 'steppe fox'. [...] Brian > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:30:39 +1300, PaulJK > <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's from <корсак> 'steppe fox'. Thanks, I didn't know that. Neither did my pocket Russian dictionary. pjk > [...] > > Brian > Are you suggesting that some (often disinterested) government > official would have more reliable sources of detail of the birth? I'm observing that over here, birth certificates are done in the hospital (presumably for home etc. births there are equivalent provisions) and signed by witnesses on the spot, not a week later. What about folks who didn't get baptized? >> Are you suggesting that some (often disinterested) government >> official would have more reliable sources of detail of the birth? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What about folks who didn't get baptized? Admittedly it's a while since we used the baptismal certificate system as a kind of proxy version of government public statistics, but I think you could use sworn statements from reputable people who knew you and were identifiable about the fact that you were existed and born in X on Y. Mind you, there were holes in the system the way it was practiced here in the old days. Even if you had been baptised if, as happened fairly often, the local church and all the records burned, you could establish a couple different birth dates by various alternate methods, which some people found rather handy. It got harder and harder after years of claiming in writing you were born in one year to receive something that required you to have been born in another year, though. SignatureCheryl > >> Are you suggesting that some (often disinterested) government > >> official would have more reliable sources of detail of the birth? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > born in one year to receive something that required you to have been > born in another year, though. Actually I was thinking of all those babies who got banished from Limbo by Benny 16. If they're not counted on earth, and they don't count in heaven, what's a heaven for? >> Are you suggesting that some (often disinterested) government >> official would have more reliable sources of detail of the birth? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What about folks who didn't get baptized? Well, obviously their certificates were not issued by any christian church. I don't really know which government department was responsible for issuing BCs at that time. Most of my mother's family were atheists for generations. They usually had their children baptised in a church nearest to their home. I presume it was then the cheapest way of conforming to the law and getting the birth certificates issued. pjk >>> Are you suggesting that some (often disinterested) government >>> official would have more reliable sources of detail of the birth? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > to their home. I presume it was then the cheapest way of > conforming to the law and getting the birth certificates issued. I was born in a country that had no birth certificates, therefore I am without one. Every adult in that country had a passport, and the birth of a child was recorded in the mother's passport. I have a certified translation of that entry, and it sufficed whenever a birth certificate was required. Now I have my own passport, but of the USA kind. SignatureSkitt (AmE) AUE's token Latvian > >> > The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked > >> > to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The "Eastern Catholic Churches" are under papal authority but I don't > think they describe themselves as "Roman Catholic". AFAIK that's correct. the Arabic name for the *Roman* Catholic Church literally translates as "the Latin Catholic". "Rumi" Catholics are Greek (or Byzantine) Catholics (under papla authority but using the Greek rite). Latin rite Catholics are a very small minority in the Middle East, though I knew a Palestinian whose father had a high rank in Jerusalem (I think they are mostly centered about there, though found elsewhere in diaspora) > -- > The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to > chance. [Robert R. Coveyou] Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 17:52): >>>>> The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked >>>>> to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Greek (or Byzantine) Catholics (under papla authority but using the > Greek rite). *How* is it correct? *How* does arabic 'roman catholic' for the eastern catholics vs 'latin catholic' for the western catholics support Adam's impression? > Latin rite Catholics are a very small minority in the > Middle East, though I knew a Palestinian whose father had a high rank > in Jerusalem (I think they are mostly centered about there, though > found elsewhere in diaspora) What I wonder is - are there 'old' latin-rite communities there alongside 'modern' ones (western migrants), or do they all mingle? It would be a tiny-minority within a tiny minority. > Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 17:52): > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > 'modern' ones (western migrants), or do they all mingle? It would be a > tiny-minority within a tiny minority. well, I assume they would go to the same churches. in the main holy places Latin is used when Catholics have their turn. > > Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 17:52): > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > well, I assume they would go to the same churches. in the main holy > places Latin is used when Catholics have their turn. and all of the Catholics are partial to the French-run schools. Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 18:51): >>> What I wonder is - are there 'old' latin-rite communities there alongside >>> 'modern' ones (western migrants), or do they all mingle? It would be a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > and all of the Catholics are partial to the French-run schools. I've been wondering: how do the maronites pronounce their french names, and how does Jumblatt have a german-sounding name? And what does Nasrallah (I presume something to do with God) mean and who gets to use it? > > I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. > > But, the whole point of Easter is that it has a full moon! You might as > well scrap the whole thing otherwise. Or are you suggesting that we > only take holidays at Easter every four years or so, when your “settled” > date just happens to correspond with the right lunar phase? I was taking into account the words of the Catholic Church that it would not be objectionable to fix Easter to a particular Sunday. But it must be a Sunday, and so the best that can be done is a range of 7 days, which my proposal accomplishes - Apr.5-11, which is exactly the middle of the current range. Andrew Usher >>>> Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, >>>> and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > only take holidays at Easter every four years or so, when your “settled†> date just happens to correspond with the right lunar phase? Really, the whole point of Easter is celebrating the coming of northern hemisphere Spring, so it were better to change the date completely. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:65e2a2e7-1aef-4872-97a7-360fa6a10a6a@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >>>>> Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the >>>>> calendar, and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Really, the whole point of Easter is celebrating the coming of northern > hemisphere Spring, Yes--when shepherds abide in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks by night & stuff. > so it were better to change the date completely. There's lots of fixing to do once we start down that road... SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >> > Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, >> > and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. Back before it became "Easter" and was still a celebration of Queen Ishtar's glory, with the rabbit and the egg as fertility symbols, what date was used? Gordon > I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. The present system might sound complicated, but it's a consistently reliable method - at least in Australia - for predicting the arrival of the first really rainy weekend in the year. This ensures that all the people who go camping for the long weekend will be rained out, year after year. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people who go camping for the long weekend will be rained out, year > after year. The local equivalent is May 24th weekend, variously known as the Queen's Birthday, the 24th, Victoria Day etc. I think it's the opening of the trout season, or possibly that for some other fish, and an enormous number of people (not including me) go camping and fishing that long weekend, fortified by lots of beer and food. And it almost invariably rains. When it doesn't rain, it snows. I once moved house on the May 24th weekend with the help of some non-fishing friends, and we had freezing rain the whole time, which made going up and down the outside steps challenging. I should have known better. SignatureCheryl >> I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people who go camping for the long weekend will be rained out, year > after year. Well, in New Zealand that prticular function is performed by Christmas. Often, the rain keeps regularly returning until the end of January/ beginning of February when the kids go back to school after the end of summer holidays. pjk >>> I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. >> The present system might sound complicated, but it's a consistently [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > beginning of February when the kids go back to school after the > end of summer holidays. How unpleasant. We always have a "record" heat wave organised for the week the kids go back to school, but unfortunately, apart from the eastern states, we don't usually have rain between November and March. (All weather in Australia is a record, eg the hottest day since last Tuesday). SignatureRob Bannister > Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, > and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Andrew Usher Give the sound of your name, I suppose you would also renumber the years, with year 1 in what is now 4004 BC. SignatureJames James Hogg filted: >> Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, >> and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> the Monday should be considered a holiday, or the Saturday if not >> normally. <et seq> >Give the sound of your name, I suppose you would also renumber the >years, with year 1 in what is now 4004 BC. I'm taking a survey...how many were thinking something along the same lines?... (On a more serious note, I'd like to see an actual printed calendar for Andrew's proposed system...I have a gnawing unease that it may actually make Friday the 13th *more* common than it is already)....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > (On a more serious note, I'd like to see an actual printed calendar for Andrew's > proposed system...I have a gnawing unease that it may actually make Friday the > 13th *more* common than it is already).... I did not investigate this, as it is a useless superstition - Nevertheless, I can see now that it would make Fridays the 13th slightly less common than now. Andrew Usher On 19 Feb 2010 01:06:25 -0800, R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net> wrote in <news:hllkah0nkl@drn.newsguy.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > James Hogg filted: >>> Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of >>> the calendar, and attempting in passing to create a >>> more perfect Church calendar, I say the following: [...] >> Give the sound of your name, I suppose you would also >> renumber the years, with year 1 in what is now 4004 BC. > I'm taking a survey...how many were thinking something > along the same lines?... I was. [...] Brian > On 19 Feb 2010 01:06:25 -0800, R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net> wrote > in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I was. ego quoque SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) > [...] >> >> Andrew Usher > > Give the sound of your name, I suppose you would also renumber the > years, with year 1 in what is now 4004 BC. Another one goes right over my head. What in the world is special about how "Andrew Usher" sounds? Oh, never mind. I just googled "4004 BC." Bart Mathias Bart Mathias filted: >> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Oh, never mind. I just googled "4004 BC." Guess you didn't need to have a house fall on you....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Bart Mathias filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Guess you didn't need to have a house fall on you....r Is it fall in the house of Ussher again already? SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) Last time I looked, Symmetry454 was the epitome of calendar reform: http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/symmetry.htm > Last time I looked, Symmetry454 was the epitome of calendar reform: > > http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/symmetry.htm I wonder whether this is supposed to be a proposal for a universal change in the calendar, though? If it is, then I question the need for every country in the world to celebrate purely USA political and social events (the yellow shaded days), which were said to be "permanently fixed". On that basis alone, I would say it resoundingly fails. SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. Zhang Dawei wrote (19-02-2010 15:08): >> Last time I looked, Symmetry454 was the epitome of calendar reform: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "permanently fixed". On that basis alone, I would say it resoundingly > fails. How can you even *think* that is the case?? How can you even *notice* the holidays shown are US-specific? Obviously the US holidays are there to illustrate how it works, not to be used universally. Likewise the numerals and month names. Sheesh. > How can you even *think* that is the case?? How can you even > *notice* the holidays shown are US-specific? Obviously the US > holidays are there to illustrate how it works, not to be used > universally. Likewise the numerals and month names. Sheesh. I can simply think it is the case because the website gives no indication at all that the holidays are there *merely* as an illustration, and the way it is described suggests a definite proposal of those dates (as well as the other holidays taken from a limited selection of other countries) to be holidays. Furthermore, given the lack of appreciation from some of the world's geography, it is not unreasonable to suppose that one should take what is proposed in that website at face-value. If they were there *merely* as an illustration, then that should have been made clearly known. So, it is not obvious at all, and your complaint that I have somehow been deficient in not engaging in mind-reading here is unwarranted. In fact, there should be no country-specific holidays shown at all if the intent is to try to persuade as many people as possible, from as many countries as possible, round to thinking this kind of calendar is a good thing. Instead, a better tactical move would be to always use generic names, holidays, and so on (like the "Mid-Quarter days"), with a note stating that additional holidays could be added, according to each country's requirements. So, it remains a failure if its intent is merely to illustrate the concept because it fails to explicitly say that it is just an illustration, and it fails to mention the country-specific customizations of the holidays explicitly. Furthermore, if the overall aim is persuade people from different countries round to accepting the concept, the above slip ups are compounded into a tactical error brought about by this by seeming to insist on just a small limited number of specified country's holidays, which will not persuade people from different countries to accept the proposals. SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. Zhang Dawei wrote (19-02-2010 17:40): >> How can you even *think* that is the case?? How can you even >> *notice* the holidays shown are US-specific? Obviously the US [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > number of specified country's holidays, which will not persuade people > from different countries to accept the proposals. A word of advice: when your interpretation of something makes no sense at all, and yet a tiny change in one of your assumptions may make all the nonsense go away, be prepared to revise your assumption. Communication only works thanks to the ability of both parties to infer the strictly unstated. It's only natural that unnecessary disambiguation be omitted. That can lead to misunderstading at times, but it's the price to pay for efficiency. Another one: when you come across some idea/proposal that appears to have some obvious flaw, which however can be left out with no impact at all on the rest, feel free to leave it out and just evaluate the rest. > A word of advice: when your interpretation of something makes no > sense at all, and yet a tiny change in one of your assumptions may [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > unnecessary disambiguation be omitted. That can lead to > misunderstading at times, but it's the price to pay for efficiency. I have learned, from many years of experience, that it is far better to interpret proposals at face-value with minimal mangling of interpretations by guesses as to a intended interpretation. It is a necessity in many serious areas of academic endeavour. > Another one: when you come across some idea/proposal that appears to > have some obvious flaw, which however can be left out with no impact > at all on the rest, feel free to leave it out and just evaluate the > rest. Why not work to help improve the proposal for everyone by mentioning flaws that need attention? Criticism can be positive as well as negative. SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. Zhang Dawei wrote (19-02-2010 19:37): >> A word of advice: when your interpretation of something makes no >> sense at all, and yet a tiny change in one of your assumptions may [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > interpretations by guesses as to a intended interpretation. It is a > necessity in many serious areas of academic endeavour. Of course. But there is no such thing as a literal reading. It always involves interpretation. The interpretation that someone who went to the trouble of thinking up that calendar actually intends the whole world to follow american holidays may have been the first one that occurred to you, but is too outlandish to take seriously without evidence. You might have equally read it as implying that everyone should use the same month names (not even translating them) that are used in the calendar's presentation. It's just as warranted. >> Another one: when you come across some idea/proposal that appears to >> have some obvious flaw, which however can be left out with no impact [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > flaws that need attention? Criticism can be positive as well as > negative. Of course. You'd be quite right to point out to the owner of the website that he could disambiguate. > Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, > and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the Monday should be considered a holiday, or the Saturday if not > normally. What about Thor's Day, or Thursday? I don't like it where its at. Can we move it to Friday? So I get that Friday feelin a lot earlier. And while you are at it, can you switch Monday with Wednesday so that Monday feels more like a Wednesday to avoid the dreaded Monday mornin feelin. > 2. That similarly Easter day should be fixed to the Sunday which is 15 > weeks following Christmas. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Andrew Usher > Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, > and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I > say the following: [snip] > 6. This is surely the best possible arrangement that can be made, > without disturbing the cycle of weeks or that of calendar days > inherited from the Romans. Nonsense! JRR Tolkien's creation of the "Shire Reckoning" is clearly the ultimate in rationality and convenience for a perpetual calendar. The year is divided into twelve months of thirty days each, with five additional days to make up a full 365-day year; six additional days in leap years. The additional days are not part of any week or month, so any date always falls on the same day of the week. And, of course, these additional days are always holidays, accompanied by festive eating and drinking in what my generation tends still to call "mass quantities". I didn't find a really good explanation of the system in a quick google search. Read the Appendix to JRRT's /The Lord of the Rings/ for the complete low-down. Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- My adversary's argument is not alone malevolent but ignorant to boot. He hasn't even got the sense to state his so-called evidence in terms I can refute. - Piet Hein, /The Untenable Argument/ > > Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, > > and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > leap years. The additional days are not part of any week or month, so > any date always falls on the same day of the week. I said precisely that there must not be days outside the week. Andrew Usher > Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, > and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > without disturbing the cycle of weeks or that of calendar days > inherited from the Romans. If you are going to try to make it sensible, then please give us 13 four-week months with one or two specially named days at the end of the year to even it out. The first day of each month should be a Monday. SignatureRob Bannister > > 6. This is surely the best possible arrangement that can be made, > > without disturbing the cycle of weeks or that of calendar days [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > four-week months with one or two specially named days at the end of the > year to even it out. The first day of each month should be a Monday. Once again, I said that I excluded having days outside the week. And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that is an incontrovertible fact. Having 13 months, in addition, would screw up a bunch of things ; in particular, 13 can't be divided. Andrew Usher Andrew Usher filted: >> If you are going to try to make it sensible, then please give us 13 >> four-week months with one or two specially named days at the end of the >> year to even it out. The first day of each month should be a Monday. > >Having 13 months, in addition, would screw up a bunch of things ; in >particular, 13 can't be divided. Neither can seven, but very few calendar reformers have suggested that as a reason to change the length of the week....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:12:09 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in <news:acc184f6-20cf-4ecf-8065-db72600e9c83@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that > is an incontrovertible fact. Don't be ridiculous: it's merely a convention. For many of us Monday is unquestionably the first day of the week. [...] Brian Brian M. Scott filted: >On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:12:09 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher ><k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Don't be ridiculous: it's merely a convention. For many of >us Monday is unquestionably the first day of the week. For some of us it's a good deal more than that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2I84-A9duY ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Brian M. Scott filted: >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:12:09 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2I84-A9duY Makes you long for the good old days when silicon chips could get switched to Overload. SignatureJames >> And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that >> is an incontrovertible fact. > > Don't be ridiculous: it's merely a convention. For many of > us Monday is unquestionably the first day of the week. From man 5 crontab: When specifying day of week, both day 0 and day 7 will be considered Sunday. BSD and AT&T seem to disagree about this. SignatureUsenet is a cesspool, a dung heap. [Patrick A. Townson] Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>: >From man 5 crontab: > > When specifying day of week, both day 0 and day 7 will be > considered Sunday. BSD and AT&T seem to disagree about this. But they presumably agree that day one is Monday. (I found this convenient when programing my own calendar, in which the week starts on Monday.) SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>: > >From man 5 crontab: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But they presumably agree that day one is Monday. But 0 is the start of computer indexing - at least in real programs. 0 = Sunday. Andrew Usher Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: >> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>: >> >From man 5 crontab: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >But 0 is the start of computer indexing - at least in real programs. 0 >= Sunday. Your humour bypass is showing. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>: >> >From man 5 crontab: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But 0 is the start of computer indexing - at least in real programs. 0 > = Sunday. Where do you get that idea? /BAH In sci.physics jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote: >>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>: >>> >From man 5 crontab: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > /BAH From crontab and array indexes. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>: > > >From man 5 crontab: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But 0 is the start of computer indexing - at least in real programs. 0 > = Sunday. Ahem. In low level, pointer oriented languages such as C and its family. And those who chose to imitate it. António Marques <entonio@gmail.com>: >> > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>: >> > >From man 5 crontab: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Ahem. In low level, pointer oriented languages such as C and its >family. And those who chose to imitate it. But not in the first language I used when working for a living (COBOL). SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > António Marques <entonio@gmail.com>: >>>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > But not in the first language I used when working for a living (COBOL). Nor FORTRAN DO statements. Most people start at 1. You can also write an off-by-1 bug in loops depending on whether you start the loop with 0 or 1. /BAH >> António Marques <entonio@gmail.com>: >>>>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > write an off-by-1 bug in loops depending on whether you start the loop > with 0 or 1. And in C and most C-derived languages those off-by-1 bugs abound. I've never done a formal count but I suspect that half the patches Microsoft has issued for Windows fix off-by-1 bugs. >>> António Marques <entonio@gmail.com>: >>>>>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > never done a formal count but I suspect that half the patches Microsoft > has issued for Windows fix off-by-1 bugs. Memory management is not for the faint of heart. /BAH jmfbahciv (in sci.lang): >> António Marques <entonio@gmail.com>: >>>>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > write an off-by-1 bug in loops depending on whether you start the loop > with 0 or 1. Neither Pascal. Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 88: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54XRNQ2C2x0> My favourite # 24: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz3EkkdFwvU> > >>>> But 0 is the start of computer indexing - at least in real programs. 0 > >>>> = Sunday. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Neither Pascal. Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. Andrew Usher >>>>>> But 0 is the start of computer indexing - at least in real programs. 0 >>>>>> = Sunday. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way > that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. You always count items starting with 0? /BAH jmfbahciv wrote (23-02-2010 12:28): >>>>>>> But 0 is the start of computer indexing - at least in real >>>>>>> programs. 0 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> > You always count items starting with 0? It's a matter of stupid perspective. Since the array's position is the 'first', the 'first' element's position is the array's ('first') plus 0. First plus 0 = first! António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt> writes: > jmfbahciv wrote (23-02-2010 12:28): >>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 'first', the 'first' element's position is the array's ('first') plus > 0. First plus 0 = first! Why would you assume that the position of the first element is necessarily identical to the position of the array? SignatureEvan 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/ > António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Why would you assume that the position of the first element is > necessarily identical to the position of the array? Exactly. I sure hope these people aren't coding airplanes or metro transportation systems. /BAH > >> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way > >> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 'first', the 'first' element's position is the array's ('first') plus 0. > First plus 0 = first! Indeed, indexing is not the same thing as counting. If I were creating a non-computer _indexing_ system, I would start from 0 as well. Andrew Usher > > >> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way > > >> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Indeed, indexing is not the same thing as counting. If I were creating > a non-computer _indexing_ system, I would start from 0 as well. What would you be indexing? Books, for instance, don't have a p. 0. >>>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >>>>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What would you be indexing? Books, for instance, don't have a p. 0. OTOH, indexing years starting with Year 0 makes a lot of sense. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > >> Ant nio Marques wrote: > >>>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > OTOH, indexing years starting with Year 0 makes a lot of sense. But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. Which is why astronomers don't use BCE dates. > But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. > > Which is why astronomers don't use BCE dates. "Which is why"? What astronomically-significant date more than 2010 years in the past did you have in mind for which an error of one year would be considered significant by astronomers? Other, I guess than recorded astronomical observations and predictions by people back then, but I'd expect them to use "BC" when talking about them. What do they used when such precision is required? SignatureEvan 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/ > > But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > then, but I'd expect them to use "BC" when talking about them. What > do they used when such precision is required? It's not uncommon to make tables of historic astronomical events. They might be used purely for statistical analysis, or they may be helpful for trying to determine "what's the comet-shaped thing carved in the sky on this obelisk" or whatever. FWIW, http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/dates.html says: The "astronomical" dating system refers to an alternative method of numbering years. It includes the year "0" and eliminates the need for any prefixes or suffixes by attributing the arithmetic sign to the date. Thus, the astronomical date for 2000 CE is simply +2000 or 2000. The astronomical year 0 corresponds to the year 1 BCE, while the astronomical year -1 corresponds to 2 BCE. In general, any given year "x BCE" becomes "-(x-1)" in the astronomical year numbering system. Historians should take care to note the numerical difference of one year between "BCE" dates and astronomical dates. >> > But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > astronomical year -1 corresponds to 2 BCE. In general, any given year > "x BCE" becomes "-(x-1)" in the astronomical year numbering system. Ah. I didn't know that. (At least, I don't remember knowing that.) > Historians should take care to note the numerical difference of one > year between "BCE" dates and astronomical dates. SignatureEvan 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/ <snip> >Ah. I didn't know that. (At least, I don't remember knowing that.) My spirits and faith in mankind rose two steps, only to fall a step, a millisecond later. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> The "astronomical" dating system refers to an alternative method of >> numbering years. It includes the year "0" and eliminates the need for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ah. I didn't know that. (At least, I don't remember knowing that.) You are Meno's slave AICMFD. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) On Feb 24, 5:45 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > helpful for trying to determine "what's the comet-shaped thing carved > in the sky on this obelisk" or whatever. Or, "What is the absolute date of the eclipse meticulously recorded and described in this astronomical cuneiform tablet?" > FWIW,http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/dates.htmlsays: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Historians should take care to note the numerical difference of one > year between "BCE" dates and astronomical dates. > On Feb 24, 5:45 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Or, "What is the absolute date of the eclipse meticulously recorded > and described in this astronomical cuneiform tablet?" Absolutely. There are a whole host of reasons to care about astronomical dates, even ranging down to simple curiosity about when things happened. On Feb 25, 1:30 am, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Feb 24, 5:45 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > astronomical dates, even ranging down to simple curiosity about when > things happened.- (The notion that the inquiry was limited to "comet-shaped thing carved in the sky" is a bit naive -- Bayeux Tapestry level.) >> "Which is why"? What astronomically-significant date more than 2010 >> years in the past did you have in mind for which an error of one year [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > helpful for trying to determine "what's the comet-shaped thing carved > in the sky on this obelisk" or whatever. "archaeoastronomy" SignatureSome say the world will end in fire; some say in segfaults. [XKCD 312] > >> "Which is why"? What astronomically-significant date more than 2010 > >> years in the past did you have in mind for which an error of one year [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > "archaeoastronomy" No, that's speculation about the alignments of Stonehenge or the Nasca figures or whatever. Which is different from the sort of _recorded_ observations made from at least the early first millennium BCE in Mesopotamia (and from some point in China) down to the time of Tycho Brahe, on the basis of nothing but whose naked-eye observations, Kepler worked out the theory of elliptical planetary orbits. On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:33:25 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:1696d92f-1836-48b7-a33c-1dd0a12586fb@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] >>> It's not uncommon to make tables of historic astronomical events. >>> They might be used purely for statistical analysis, or they may be >>> helpful for trying to determine "what's the comet-shaped thing carved >>> in the sky on this obelisk" or whatever. >> "archaeoastronomy" Historical astronomy. > No, that's speculation about the alignments of Stonehenge > or the Nasca figures or whatever. At least one book on the subject defines it as the study of how people in the past 'have understood the phenomena in the sky, how they used phenomena in the sky and what role the sky played in their cultures'. To some extent it must draw on historical astronomy. > Which is different from the sort of _recorded_ > observations made from at least the early first > millennium BCE in Mesopotamia Those, however, are among the data considered by archaeoastronomers studying the relevant cultures. > (and from some point in China) down to the time of Tycho > Brahe, on the basis of nothing but whose naked-eye > observations, Kepler worked out the theory of elliptical > planetary orbits. Brian > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:33:25 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Historical astronomy. both terms exist. "Historical Astronomy" is appropriate for the first point, "Archaeoastronomy", for the last point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoastronomy Archaeoastronomy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The rising Sun illuminates the inner chamber of Newgrange, Ireland, only at the winter solsticeArchaeoastronomy (also spelled archeoastronomy) is the study of how past people "have understood the phenomena in the sky, how they used phenomena in the sky and what role the sky played in their cultures."[1] Clive Ruggles argues it is misleading to consider archaeoastronomy to be the study of ancient astronomy, as modern astronomy is a scientific discipline, while archaeoastronomy considers other cultures' symbolically rich cultural interpretations of phenomena in the sky.[2][3] It is often twinned with ethnoastronomy, the anthropological study of skywatching in contemporary societies. Archaeoastronomy is also closely associated with historical astronomy, the use of historical records of heavenly events to answer astronomical problems and the history of astronomy, which uses written records to evaluate past astronomical practice. OTOH: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_astronomy Historical astronomy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Historical astronomy is the science of analysing historic astronomical data. The American Astronomical Society (AAS), established 1899, states that its Historical Astronomy Division "...shall exist for the purpose of advancing interest in topics relating to the historical nature of astronomy. By historical astronomy we include the history of astronomy; what has come to be known as archaeoastronomy; and the application of historical records to modern astrophysical problems." [1] Historical and ancient observations are used to track theoretically long term trends, such as eclipse patterns and the velocity of nebular clouds. [2] Conversely, utilizing known and well documented phenomenological activity, historical astronomers and apply computer models to verify the validity of ancient observations, as well as dating such observations and documents which would otherwise be unknown. > > No, that's speculation about the alignments of Stonehenge > > or the Nasca figures or whatever. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Brian On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:08:23 -0800 (PST), Yusuf B Gursey <ybg@theworld.com> wrote in <news:ece5875d-4923-4378-9aee-50d51c604cf4@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:33:25 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:1696d92f-1836-48b7-a33c-1dd0a12586fb@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> >> in sci.math,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> [...] >>>>> It's not uncommon to make tables of historic >>>>> astronomical events. They might be used purely for >>>>> statistical analysis, or they may be helpful for >>>>> trying to determine "what's the comet-shaped thing >>>>> carved in the sky on this obelisk" or whatever. >>>> "archaeoastronomy" >> Historical astronomy. > both terms exist. "Historical Astronomy" is appropriate > for the first point, "Archaeoastronomy", for the last > point. [...] Yes, as should have been clear from the remainder of my post. Brian Peter T. Daniels filted: >> "archaeoastronomy" > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >nothing but whose naked-eye observations, Kepler worked out the theory >of elliptical planetary orbits. Impressive, true, but I once got my hands on a book on celestial mechanics that derived the fact of elliptical orbits (and the "equal areas in equal times" principle) starting with nothing but the fact that gravity is in inverse-square proportion to distance....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > Peter T. Daniels filted: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > principle) starting with nothing but the fact that gravity is in inverse-square > proportion to distance....r but Kepler didn't know that. it took Newton to figure it out. > -- > "Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." > - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >> Peter T. Daniels filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > but Kepler didn't know that. it took Newton to figure it out. In fact Newton did it the other way around. He started with Kepler's results about the shape of the orbits, and deduced from that that the force acting on the planets must obey an inverse-square law. Once I tried to follow the same line of reasoning, and got nowhere. Showing that an inverse-square law leads to elliptical orbits is a simple undergraduate exercise these days, although it would have been harder in Newton's day. Showing that elliptical orbits leads to an inverse-square law is a problem of fiendish difficulty. I imagine that Newton started with a variety of guesses (constant force; force varying inversely with distance; etc.) and tried each one until he found one that gave a match with Kepler's results. In some other problem domains, e.g. radiant energy, conservation-of-energy arguments lead directly to an inverse-square law. In the case of gravity, anything other than an inverse-square law would lead to planets that either fell into the sun or flew off into the outer void. It's not clear to me, though, that Newton had enough information to be able to guess that inverse-square was the most obvious candidate. These days it's standard practice to publish only the final tidied-up version of theoretical results, omitting any insight into the reasoning that led to the results. I think that's also what Newton did. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > In fact Newton did it the other way around. He started with Kepler's > results about the shape of the orbits, and deduced from that that the > force acting on the planets must obey an inverse-square law. In fact he first proved that any central force must lead to equal areas in equal times. Once you know that, it should not be a difficult calculation to find that the force must be inverse square. > I imagine that Newton started with a variety of guesses (constant force; > force varying inversely with distance; etc.) and tried each one until he > found one that gave a match with Kepler's results. No, he (and others) already had surmised the inverse-square nature. Newton did this by first comparing the force that must hold the moon in its orbit (assuming it circular) to the force of gravity here, and finding it to answer to an inverse square rule. > In some other problem domains, e.g. radiant energy, > conservation-of-energy arguments lead directly to an inverse-square law. > In the case of gravity, anything other than an inverse-square law would > lead to planets that either fell into the sun or flew off into the outer > void. No; only an exponent >= 3 would do that. An exponent of exactly 3 (inverse cube law) would be the strangest of all. > It's not clear to me, though, that Newton had enough information > to be able to guess that inverse-square was the most obvious candidate. > These days it's standard practice to publish only the final tidied-up > version of theoretical results, omitting any insight into the reasoning > that led to the results. I think that's also what Newton did. Yes, more or less. Andrew Usher >>> Peter T. Daniels filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > In some other problem domains, e.g. radiant energy, > conservation-of-energy arguments lead directly to an inverse-square law. Similarly, a zero divergence of "flux" (outside the source) would lead to inverse square law. Intuitive, this means that if one assume that the force "thins out evenly in all directions" (as luminance, etc), the inverse square law becomes a necessity. > In the case of gravity, anything other than an inverse-square law would > lead to planets that either fell into the sun or flew off into the outer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > version of theoretical results, omitting any insight into the reasoning > that led to the results. I think that's also what Newton did. Others have proposed a inverse square relationship before Newton. E.g., Hooke. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >>> Peter T. Daniels filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > force varying inversely with distance; etc.) and tried each one until he > found one that gave a match with Kepler's results. If he imagined gravity as force lines emanating from an object A into infinity, then another object B would be struck by a number of such force lines depending on its distance from the object A. The relationship between distance A to B, and gravity attraction is similar to the relationship between diameter and surface areas of the spheres of various diameters. I would be surprised if the inverse-square-of-the-distance law wasn't the first one he thought of. It seems to be so obvious. pjk > In some other problem domains, e.g. radiant energy, > conservation-of-energy arguments lead directly to an inverse-square law. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > version of theoretical results, omitting any insight into the reasoning > that led to the results. I think that's also what Newton did. > > I imagine that Newton started with a variety of guesses (constant force; > > force varying inversely with distance; etc.) and tried each one until he [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I would be surprised if the inverse-square-of-the-distance law > wasn't the first one he thought of. It seems to be so obvious. It may be obvious now but there's no reason Newton would think in those terms. He himself described how he came to the law: he calculated the force (i.e. acceleration) to keep the moon in its orbit and compared it with the distance of the moon. A scientist naturally picks out the simplest law consistent with the data. Andrew Usher > Peter T. Daniels filted: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > principle) starting with nothing but the fact that gravity is in inverse-square > proportion to distance....r Kepler would have had it so much easier if he had lived after Newtion! >> Peter T. Daniels filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Kepler would have had it so much easier if he had lived after Newtion! It's often easier to get "there" if you start from somewhere else. SignatureRob Bannister > > But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > then, but I'd expect them to use "BC" when talking about them. What > do they used when such precision is required? One very practical thing astronomers do is calculate the dates of eclipses, which are tremendously useful in determining the absolute dating of annals that mention eclipses. Look at any treatment of ancient chronologies. > > >> Ant nio Marques wrote: > > >>>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > But there was no Year 0. Yes there was. 0 CE preceeded 1 CE. > 1 BCE Is a different number system. > was immediately followed by 1 CE. No, it was immediately followed by 0 BCE, then -1 BCE, -2 BCE, etc. > Which is why astronomers don't use BCE dates. Duh. What they use is -2 CE, -1 CE, 0 CE, 1 CE, 2 CE, etc. > > > >> Ant nio Marques wrote: > > > >>>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Yes there was. 0 CE preceeded 1 CE. The concept of zero was unknown to Dionysius Exiguus (or to anyone else) when he devised the system. > > 1 BCE > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, it was immediately followed by 0 BCE, then -1 BCE, -2 BCE, etc. What do you mean by "was followed by"? > > Which is why astronomers don't use BCE dates. > > Duh. What they use is -2 CE, -1 CE, 0 CE, 1 CE, 2 CE, etc.- ??????????????? Where "1 CE" = "-1 BCE" ?????????? >>> But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. >>> >> Yes there was. 0 CE preceeded 1 CE. >> > The concept of zero was unknown to Dionysius Exiguus (or to anyone > else) when he devised the system. Dionysius Exiguus didn't devise any year system named "CE". (Pop quiz: What were the initials of the name of the system that Dionysius Exiguus did invent?) It's humbling to see that Usenet in 2010 has yet to progress beyond where Notes and Queries was in 1864. On Mar 5, 10:23 am, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: > >>> But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What were the initials of the name of the system that Dionysius Exiguus > did invent?) I'm beginning to think that you have a very, very tenuous command of the English language. No one suggested that Dennis the Skinny named his system "CE." He devised the system that now includes the label "CE." (And many other labels.) >>>>> But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > No one suggested that Dennis the Skinny named his system "CE." For your edification, I've left quoted the text where you did exactly that. On Mar 8, 9:21 pm, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: > >>>>> But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > For your edification, I've left quoted the text where you did exactly that. Not in the above material, you didn't -- for I never did any such thing. > >> Yes there was. 0 CE preceeded 1 CE. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What were the initials of the name of the system that Dionysius Exiguus > did invent?) Did Dionysius use any initials? English has AD, but other languages have other expressions; Latin often used 'anno Christi'. Here you can see his table: http://www.henk-reints.nl/cal/audette/denys.html. In the table is the full form 'Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi'; he has the short form 'Anno Domini' twice, and 'Anno Christi' once. Probably no abbreviations were used until much later, but 'AD' is the only one I've ever seen in inscriptions. Andrew Usher > > >> Yes there was. 0 CE preceeded 1 CE. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Probably no abbreviations were used until much later, but 'AD' is the > only one I've ever seen in inscriptions. The people who put dates on cornerstones these days (since "CE" was invented, that is) don't generally provide any era designation. In sci.astro message <c25693ae-2696-4e7c-a878-392c0d2d0b8b@d27g2000yqf.g ooglegroups.com>, Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:18:50, Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> posted: >The people who put dates on cornerstones these days (since "CE" was >invented, that is) don't generally provide any era designation. The dates on cornerstones are necessarily AD, if presumed to be on the Julian or Gregorian Calendars, because BC had already ceased when those were invented. AD, AH, AM can only mean Christian, Muslim, Jewish (or a rarity). Signature(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (RFCs 5536/7) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (RFCs 5536/7) > In sci.astro message <c25693ae-2696-4e7c-a878-392c0d2d0b8b@d27g2000yqf.g > ooglegroups.com>, Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:18:50, Peter T. Daniels [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Julian or Gregorian Calendars, because BC had already ceased when those > were invented. Peter clearly thinks we all need to write CE now and there's something wrong with AD. Andrew Usher >> In sci.astro message <c25693ae-2696-4e7c-a878-392c0d2d0b8b@d27g2000yqf.g >> ooglegroups.com>, Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:18:50, Peter T. Daniels [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Peter clearly thinks we all need to write CE now and there's something >wrong with AD. Since AD - Anno Domini, I think there's something wrong with AD. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > > In sci.astro message <c25693ae-2696-4e7c-a878-392c0d2d0...@d27g2000yqf.g > > ooglegroups.com>, Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:18:50, Peter T. Daniels [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Peter clearly thinks we all need to write CE now and there's something > wrong with AD. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Why would you put "C.E." on a cornerstone? It makes no sense to use "A.D." in any context that isn't explicitly Christian, which is why "C.E." was invented in the middle of the last century. >>> In sci.astro message <c25693ae-2696-4e7c-a878-392c0d2d0...@d27g2000yqf.g >>> ooglegroups.com>, Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:18:50, Peter T. Daniels [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Christian, which is why "C.E." was invented in the middle of the last > century. Since most people have no idea what "AD" stands for, any more than they know the meaning of "am" or "pm" or even "ie" and "eg", I really can't see it makes any difference. With one exception: most grown-up people did their growing up with "AD" and most history books still have "AD" in them. Moreover, I bet a lot of people who do use "CE" think it stands for "Christian Era" which is as explicit as you can get. It was a pointless change, which, in any case, has only been adopted by a few. SignatureRob Bannister > Since most people have no idea what "AD" stands for, any more than they > know the meaning of "am" or "pm" or even "ie" and "eg", I really can't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It was a pointless change, which, in any case, has only been adopted by > a few. It does have one point: you can use negative numbers in the "CE" notation. This avoids the confusion caused by the missing zero in the BC/AD system SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > > Since most people have no idea what "AD" stands for, any more than they > > know the meaning of "am" or "pm" or even "ie" and "eg", I really can't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > notation. This avoids the confusion caused by the missing zero in the > BC/AD system No, BCE/CE are exact substitutes for BC/AD. Andrew Usher On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:57:26 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in <news:5bfc0a88-075b-4be2-8ac4-8e55524758a3@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro: [...] >> It does have one point: you can use negative numbers in the "CE" >> notation. This avoids the confusion caused by the missing zero in the >> BC/AD system > No, BCE/CE are exact substitutes for BC/AD. True; Peter is thinking of the astronomical year numbering, which eschews era designators altogether. >> Since most people have no idea what "AD" stands for, any more than they >> know the meaning of "am" or "pm" or even "ie" and "eg", I really can't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > notation. This avoids the confusion caused by the missing zero in the > BC/AD system In that case, what is this "BCE" that I also see all over the place? SignatureRob Bannister > It was a pointless change, which, in any case, has only been adopted > by a few. China has been depopulated? This is a momentous event. When did this happen? >> It was a pointless change, which, in any case, has only been adopted >> by a few. >> > China has been depopulated? This is a momentous event. When did this > happen? Sorry. Are you saying that the Chinese write in English? SignatureRob Bannister >>> It was a pointless change, which, in any case, has only been adopted >>> by a few. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > Sorry. Are you saying that the Chinese write in English? Silly anglophone-limited grasshopper! It's not just English speakers who have adopted the Common Era nomenclature and who are part of that "few" that you wrote. >> It was a pointless change, which, in any case, has only been adopted >> by a few. >> > China has been depopulated? This is a momentous event. When did this > happen? What do you mean? Chinese people have been using the same terms to translate both AD and CE. They hardly notice the change. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:41:10 +0800, Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in <news:7vqsh9Fe57U1@mid.individual.net> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro: [(B)CE for BC/AD:] > It was a pointless change, which, in any case, has only > been adopted by a few. In fact it's becoming increasingly common in the U.S. Brian > Robert Bannister wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > In fact it's becoming increasingly common in the U.S. But only among the "hip" and "cool" ones. Some 99.99% of all (native) speakers of English worldwide -- including Americans -- do not use and understand those ridiculous, pompous abbreviations "BCE" and "CE." Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ Born A.D. 1936 > > Robert Bannister wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > speakers of English worldwide -- including Americans -- do not use and > understand those ridiculous, pompous abbreviations "BCE" and "CE." He, Bub, du bist ein sehr widerlicher und widerwärtiger Typ. > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:41:10 +0800, Robert Bannister ><robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > In fact it's becoming increasingly common in the U.S. Just saw this in the news: Students want ‘Our Lord' phrase off diplomas A group of students at Trinity University is lobbying trustees to drop a reference to “Our Lord” on their diplomas, arguing it does not respect the diversity of religions on campus. “A diploma is a very personal item, and people want to proudly display it in their offices and homes,” said Sidra Qureshi, president of Trinity Diversity Connection. “By having the phrase ‘In the Year of Our Lord,' it is directly referencing Jesus Christ, and not everyone believes in Jesus Christ.” ... Other students and President Dennis Ahlburg have defended the wording, arguing that references to the school's Presbyterian roots are appropriate and unobtrusive. ... McNamara [president of the College Republicans] pointed out that Trinity displays other signs of its Christian heritage, including a chapel on campus, a chaplain, Christmas vespers and a Bible etching on the Trinity seal. “Once you remove that phrase, where do you draw the line?” McNamara asked. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Students_want_Our_Lord_phrase_off_Tri nity_diplomas.html Umm, the name of the university it a bit of a give-away too. SignatureSteve: Now, okay. I did say that monkeys could program Visual Basic. Leo: But not that all Visual Basic programmers are monkeys. Steve: Exactly. [Security Now 194] > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:41:10 +0800, Robert Bannister > ><robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > drop a reference to "Our Lord" on their diplomas, arguing it does > not respect the diversity of religions on campus. Oh, give me a f...king break. Trinity University is a religious school to begin with. If the students can't handle that, they should have gone to college elsewhere. > "A diploma is a very personal item, and people want to proudly > display it in their offices and homes," said Sidra Qureshi, > president of Trinity Diversity Connection. "By having the phrase 'In > the Year of Our Lord,' it is directly referencing Jesus Christ, and > not everyone believes in Jesus Christ." Then they don't belong at that school. > ... > Other students and President Dennis Ahlburg have defended the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Once you remove that phrase, where do you draw the line?" McNamara > asked. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Students_want_Our_Lord_phrase_off_Tri nity_diplomas.html > Umm, the name of the university it a bit of a give-away too. Duh! On Apr 1, 2:18 pm, "D. Stussy" <spam+newsgro...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote: > "Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message ... > > Just saw this in the news: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Oh, give me a f...king break. Trinity University is a religious school to > begin with. ... It doesn't seem to be. Here's its chaplaincy's Web site: http://web.trinity.edu/x2010.xml And the list of campus religious organizations: http://web.trinity.edu/x3198.xml -- Jerry Friedman > On Apr 1, 2:18 pm, "D. Stussy" > <spam+newsgro...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote: >> "Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message > ... >>> Just saw this in the news: >>> Students want 'Our Lord' phrase off diplomas A group >>> of students at Trinity University is lobbying >>> trustees to drop a reference to "Our Lord" on their >>> diplomas, arguing it does not respect the diversity >>> of religions on campus. >> Oh, give me a f...king break. Trinity University is a >> religious school to begin with. > ... > It doesn't seem to be. Here's its chaplaincy's Web site: > http://web.trinity.edu/x2010.xml > And the list of campus religious organizations: > http://web.trinity.edu/x3198.xml And from its potted history at <http://web.trinity.edu/x836.xml>: In 1969, at the initiation of the Presbyterian Church, Trinity entered into a covenant agreement with the regional synod that affirmed historical connections, but transformed Trinity into a private, independent University with a self-perpetuating board of trustees. I'm more than sympathetic to the students, but I doubt that they'll have much more luck than those who would like to restore the pledge of allegiance to its proper form and get rid of the damned 'In God We Trust' on coins. Brian D. wrote on Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:18:07 -0700: > >> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:41:10 +0800, Robert Bannister > >> <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> diplomas, arguing it does not respect the diversity of >> religions on campus. > Oh, give me a f...king break. Trinity University is a > religious school to begin with. If the students can't handle > that, they should have gone to college elsewhere. >> "A diploma is a very personal item, and people want to >> proudly display it in their offices and homes," said Sidra >> Qureshi, president of Trinity Diversity Connection. "By >> having the phrase 'In the Year of Our Lord,' it is directly >> referencing Jesus Christ, and not everyone believes in Jesus >> Christ." > Then they don't belong at that school. >> ... >> Other students and President Dennis Ahlburg have defended [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> Umm, the name of the university it a bit of a give-away too. I had an aquaintance from Sri Lanka who complained bitterly that his diploma was written in Latin. It did not do him any good and I guess he finally puzzled it out. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:41:10 +0800, Robert Bannister > ><robb...@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Umm, the name of the university it a bit of a give-away too. It's a bit surprising for a Presbyterian institution. Brian Scott: > > [(B)CE for BC/AD:] > > In fact it's becoming increasingly common in the U.S. Adam Funk: > Just saw this in the news... > > A group of students at Trinity University is lobbying trustees to > drop a reference to "Our Lord" on their diplomas, Note that this is not the same thing. I use AD happily; he's not *my* lord, but that's not what the expression says, and he is *a* lord to some people. > arguing it does not respect the diversity of religions on campus. ... > McNamara [president of the College Republicans] pointed out that > Trinity displays other signs of its Christian heritage, including a > chapel on campus, a chaplain, Christmas vespers and a Bible etching > on the Trinity seal. He or she has certainly got a point there. > Umm, the name of the university it a bit of a give-away too. Well, not necessarily, although it is suggestive. St. Paul College <http://www.saintpaul.edu> in Minnesota isn't a religious college -- it's located in the city of St. Paul. SignatureMark Brader | "I do have an idea ... based on the quite obvious fact Toronto | that the number two is ridiculous and can't exist." msb@vex.net | -- Ben Denison (Isaac Asimov, "The Gods Themselves") My text in this article is in the public domain. > Adam Funk: >> Just saw this in the news... >> >> A group of students at Trinity University is lobbying trustees to >> drop a reference to "Our Lord" on their diplomas, ... >> Umm, the name of the university it a bit of a give-away too. > > Well, not necessarily, although it is suggestive. St. Paul College ><http://www.saintpaul.edu> in Minnesota isn't a religious college -- > it's located in the city of St. Paul. Yabbut in this case it would be called St Anthony University. ;-) (San Antonio, TX) SignatureI worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my daughter] will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?' [Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/ ] >> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:41:10 +0800, Robert Bannister >><robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> It was a pointless change, which, in any case, has only >>> been adopted by a few. It has plenty of point. >> In fact it's becoming increasingly common in the U.S. And especially in archaeology journals. >Just saw this in the news: > > Students want Our Lord' phrase off diplomas I agree with whoever said this is not the same thing as AD. It would be the same thing as AND or ADN. My Latin is rusty so I don't remember if it would be Anno Neustri Domini or Anno Domini Neustri, or maybe neustro is only Spanish. I have a Latin dictionary somewhere...where is it? Anno domini means year of a lord or maybe year of the lord (since iirc there is no "the" in Latin) But if they're going to throw in pronouns, I'll throw in my own and figure it means "Year of Their Lord". > A group of students at Trinity University is lobbying trustees to > drop a reference to Our Lord on their diplomas, arguing it does [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the Year of Our Lord,' it is directly referencing Jesus Christ, and > not everyone believes in Jesus Christ. What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ keep calling him Jesus Christ. Isn't the core of the question whether he was a christ or not? It seems to me they weaken the appearance of their argument, or the argument itself, when they call him by a title one would otherwise think they think he doesn't deserve. > ... > Other students and President Dennis Ahlburg have defended the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > chapel on campus, a chaplain, Christmas vespers and a Bible etching > on the Trinity seal. Yes, I think this guy has a hard row to hoe regarding a Christian college or even one with a Christian heritage. Maybe he had no idaa what trinity meant in this context, but he has to pay for that. If he went to a public college or university, I think he'd be right, not just for his diploma but for everyone's. I wonder what the status of that is. > Once you remove that phrase, where do you draw the line? McNamara > asked. > >http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Students_want_Our_Lord_phrase_off_Tri nity_diplomas.html > >Umm, the name of the university it a bit of a give-away too. Yup. >Yes, I think this guy has a hard row to hoe regarding a Christian >college or even one with a Christian heritage. Maybe he had no idaa [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >not just for his diploma but for everyone's. I wonder what the >status of that is. The article says: When Medina applied to Trinity, university staff told him it wasn't a religious institution and that it maintained only a historical bond to the Presbyterian Church. So the godly reference came as a big surprise, said Medina, who graduated in December. I felt I was a victim of a bait and switch. - - - If they conclude that he likely did ask and was told something like what he says he was, they should bite the bullet and pay 100 dollars and print him a custom diploma. They can ask everyone now enrolled if they want one like it, pay 200 dollars and print 85 of them. And after that they should give more precise information to people who ask. Unless, who knows, they really do want to change the diploma for everyone. Despite my complaints in my previous post, it's not a public institution and they're entitled do things the way they want. I don't know what percentagbe of their money would have to come directly from a state or the natinoal government to change that (90% would qualify, but I'm not sure about lower numbers), but I doubt if they are at that point. >>Yes, I think this guy has a hard row to hoe regarding a Christian >>college or even one with a Christian heritage. Maybe he had no idaa [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >religious institution and that it maintained only a historical bond to >the Presbyterian Church. My diploma from Northwestern University (Evanston, IL, USA) has "In the year of our Lord" on it. It's only fair. I paid the tuition with money with "In God We Trust" on it. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > My diploma from Northwestern University (Evanston, IL, USA) has "In > the year of our Lord" on it. According to Stanford, I graduated on the Fourteenth Day of June in the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty-Seven the Two Hundred-Eleventh Year of the Republic and the Ninety-Sixth Academic Year of the University. (sic on the lack of commas). > It's only fair. I paid the tuition with money with "In God We > Trust" on it. Really? I never paid my tuition in cash. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Algebra? But that's far too 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |difficult for seven-year-olds!" Palo Alto, CA 94304 | |"Yes, but I didn't tell them that kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |and so far they haven't found out," (650)857-7572 |said Susan. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> My diploma from Northwestern University (Evanston, IL, USA) has "In >> the year of our Lord" on it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Really? I never paid my tuition in cash. Actually, I did. Not at Northwestern, but I did at Indiana University. Tuition then was $110* a semester and I didn't have a checking account. I saved money from various summer and part-time jobs and put in a savings account. I withdrew a semester's cash before heading off to campus because the bank I used didn't have an outlet in Bloomington. There was no branch banking in Indiana in those years. I paid for my tuition and other expenses in cash. It wasn't really uncommon then. Some of the jobs I had paid in cash. The wages were in a brown envelope - the pay packet preceded the pay check - with the hours worked and such printed on the front. I didn't have a checking account until I moved to the Chicago area and opened one at Lake Shore Bank. I felt quite the big-shot when I wrote my first check. You youngsters don't understand that not everyone always had checking accounts. I don't remember when my parents first opened a checking account, but I do remember my mother's "envelope system" when I was in grade school. My father would bring home his pay in cash and my mother would put amounts of it in a booklet with individual envelopes for designated expenses. So much a week would go in the "Coal" envelope, so much in the "Electric" envelope, and so on. *I think that figure's correct. Close, anyway. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:31:19 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > for designated expenses. So much a week would go in the "Coal" > envelope, so much in the "Electric" envelope, and so on. Checking accounts are becoming a thing of the past. The organizer of the symposium I'm speaking at in Cologne next week wants to reimburse me for my plane fare in cash, in euros -- because they don't use checks in Germany any more. If the local ATMs don't allow me to make a deposit into my US account, I'll have to carry approximately $1000 in cash (they might be able to give me dollars!) back and deposit it here. > *I think that figure's correct. Close, anyway. * Peter T. Daniels: > Checking accounts are becoming a thing of the past. The organizer of > the symposium I'm speaking at in Cologne next week wants to reimburse [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cash (they might be able to give me dollars!) back and deposit it > here. I can send money to my bank in Canada, the fee is high by European standards, but for $1000, it would be preferable to carrying cash. Individual cheques in the North American sense were unusual in Germany even when I opened my first "giro" account ca. 1982. SignatureA computer will do what you tell it to do, but that may be much different from what you had in mind. - Joseph Weizenbaum * Evan Kirshenbaum: >> My diploma from Northwestern University (Evanston, IL, USA) has "In >> the year of our Lord" on it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (sic on the lack of commas). In my dentist's office I saw that his was in Latin (from McGill University in Montreal). I find it amusing at times how North Americans hold on to that traditional pompousness. Reminds me of their feudal taste in furniture, all while seeing themselves as leading modern democracy. On my diplomas from both Germany and Japan, the year is of course written in numbers, no Latin (or classical Chinese) is used, and there's no reference to religion, the Tenno, or anything of that general nature. SignatureQ: What do computer engineers use for birth control? A: Their personalities. > * Evan Kirshenbaum: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > no Latin (or classical Chinese) is used, and there's no reference to > religion, the Tenno, or anything of that general nature. My Cornell diploma is written in English. What "feudal taste in furniture"? * Peter T. Daniels: >> * Evan Kirshenbaum: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > What "feudal taste in furniture"? Furniture inspired by Louis-XV or other contemporary styles that I see in a lot of public places in North America. As a faint reflection, I see that even in a lot of home furniture. Europeans tend to use more modern styles. Chancellor Merkel in her office: <http://www.art-magazin.de/asset/Image/_2010/KUNST/Macht-zeigen/Aufmacher/03_Baue r_Merkel_ar.jpg> SignatureGOGELN, vb., flattern, sich (schwankend) hin und her bewegen, gaukelei treiben, gesticulari. zur herkunft vgl. gogel, adj., und gaukeln, vb.; in fast allen mundarten verbreitet, literarisch bis ins 17. jh. bezeugt; s. auch gugeln und gageln. GRIMM, Deutsches Wörterbuch > * Peter T. Daniels: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > that even in a lot of home furniture. Europeans tend to use more modern > styles. What sort of "public places" have Louis XV furnishings? > Chancellor Merkel in her office: > <http://www.art-magazin.de/asset/Image/_2010/KUNST/Macht-zeigen/Aufmac...> Ugh, why would the Chancellor of Germany want her office to look like a mid-level corporate executive's? AIUI, the White House has a considerable collection of historic pieces, and each president chooses which is to be his ceremonial desk in the Oval Office on the basis of its historical associations. Both Houses of Congress use the furniture that's been in their Chambers for more than 200 years, and as their membership enlarged, pieces were created on the same pattern to accommodate the new Senators and Representatives. The Supreme Court building dates only from the 1930s -- and there were great complaints from architecture critics at the time that it didn't reflect any sort of modern styling. However, "modern" or modernistic public buildings from midcentury have not aged well -- have you visited the UN recently? The exterior is still stunning, but the interior is _very_ 50s Moderne. > * Peter T. Daniels: >>> I find it amusing at times how North Americans hold on to that >>> traditional pompousness. Reminds me of their feudal taste in furniture, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Furniture inspired by Louis-XV or other contemporary styles that I see > in a lot of public places in North America. Do you mean Federal Style? That's more like a type of neo-classical, whereas Louis XV is rococo. (Personally, I prefer Gothic styles.) > As a faint reflection, I see that even in a lot of home > furniture. Europeans tend to use more modern styles. > > Chancellor Merkel in her office: ><http://www.art-magazin.de/asset/Image/_2010/KUNST/Macht-zeigen/Aufmacher/03_Baue r_Merkel_ar.jpg> I'd call that crappy corporate style. SignatureThe generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. [Robert R. Coveyou] >>> What "feudal taste in furniture"? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Do you mean Federal Style? That's more like a type of neo-classical, >whereas Louis XV is rococo. (Personally, I prefer Gothic styles.) I was thinking more of "Colonial Style". >>>> What "feudal taste in furniture"? >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I was thinking more of "Colonial Style". Well, AIUI, some of the early Colonial buildings looked a lot like late mediaeval or Tudor farmhouses and barns (I'm tying this to the "feudal taste" comment --- although I've wandered away from furniture to architecture), but I don't think that style was used much after the revolution, particularly for public buildings. SignatureIt is probable that television drama of high caliber and produced by first-rate artists will materially raise the level of dramatic taste of the nation. (David Sarnoff, CEO of RCA, 1939; in Stoll 1995) > * Evan Kirshenbaum: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > no Latin (or classical Chinese) is used, and there's no reference to > religion, the Tenno, or anything of that general nature. Your diploma from Japan is in Japanese, but refers to the year with just numbers and no reignal name?? Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr * Tak To: >> * Evan Kirshenbaum: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Your diploma from Japan is in Japanese, but refers to > the year with just numbers and no reignal name?? Hm, sounds unlikely. Guess I should have checked on that one before sending it. No, the date is in the Japanese format, so there's an indirect reference to the tenno. SignatureGOGELICH,gogelig, (...) 'fröhlich, lustig, ausgelassen' GRIMM, Deutsches Wörterbuch bwana@invalid.com filted: >What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ >keep calling him Jesus Christ. Isn't the core of the question whether >he was a christ or not? It seems to me they weaken the appearance of >their argument, or the argument itself, when they call him by a title >one would otherwise think they think he doesn't deserve. What would everyone else call him, then?..."Jesus bar Joseph"?... "Josh Carpenter"?...r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >bwana@invalid.com filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >What would everyone else call him, then?..."Jesus bar Joseph"?... No. >"Josh Carpenter"?...r I call him Jesus. If that would ever not be enough to make it clear, I would say Jesus of Nazareth. I have noticed that some radio and tv reporters and news readers call him Jesus and some call him Jesus Christ. I think in the spirit of objective reporting, they should all call him Jesus or Jesus of Nazareth. It's a theological position to call him "Jesus Christ". >>bwana@invalid.com filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >objective reporting, they should all call him Jesus or Jesus of >Nazareth. It's a theological position to call him "Jesus Christ". Don't stop there. Insist that the reporters use "Jesus, the alleged Christ". SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida bwana@invalid.com wrote,in part: > I have noticed that some radio and tv reporters and news readers call > him Jesus and some call him Jesus Christ. I think in the spirit of > objective reporting, they should all call him Jesus or Jesus of > Nazareth. It's a theological position to call him "Jesus Christ". You may be making too much of this. It is common for people to use "Jesus Christ" when speaking of Jesus. It is also common for some to use "Jesus the Christ." This happens even in "objective reporting," possibly, and perhaps simply, in deference to the reading audience. Note: Pronouns referring to God and Jesus have ususally been capitalized. However, I understand that the practice is waning. In fact, my latest version of the Holy Bible (printed with "super giant print" and published in 1996) does not capitalize the referential pronouns (he, his, etc.). The only problem I can see with dropping the caps is that "Him" rather than "him" does help the reader to know who ("Who"?) is being mentioned without reading or rereading the whole passage. SignatureMaria Conlon Maria wrote on Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:27:35 -0400: > bwana@invalid.com wrote,in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> call him Jesus or Jesus of Nazareth. It's a theological >> position to call him "Jesus Christ". > You may be making too much of this. It is common for people to > use "Jesus Christ" when speaking of Jesus. It is also common > for some to use "Jesus the Christ." This happens even in > "objective reporting," possibly, and perhaps simply, in > deference to the reading audience. > Note: Pronouns referring to God and Jesus have ususally been > capitalized. However, I understand that the practice is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > help the reader to know who ("Who"?) is being mentioned without > reading or rereading the whole passage. My favorite Bible translation is the "New Jerusalem Bible" and it does not capitalize "he", "him", "you", etc. for the deity even if insists on using "Yahweh" as his name. In the Psalms, he is also sometimes addressed as "Lord" and very occasionally referred to as "God". SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not On Apr 2, 3:20 pm, "James Silverton" <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net> wrote: > Maria wrote on Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:27:35 -0400: > > bw...@invalid.com wrote,in part: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > using "Yahweh" as his name. In the Psalms, he is also sometimes > addressed as "Lord" and very occasionally referred to as "God". Those would reflect different names in the Hebrew. On Apr 2, 4:48 am, bw...@invalid.com wrote: > >bw...@invalid.com filted: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > objective reporting, they should all call him Jesus or Jesus of > Nazareth. It's a theological position to call him "Jesus Christ". Someone ought to find out what the full technical scope of anointing is. I know the Greek word christos means anointed, and is used to mean anointed by or on behalf of the Lord (Hail to the Lord's anointed, as the hymn goes) in an attempt to translate the Hebrew, but anyone who was disposed to dispute the theological by or for whom point could salve their conscience by taking anointed to mean mere pouring of oil or rubbing of ointment. Why, I've been anointed myself in the oil-pouring sense, and don't claim any divine authority. I wasn't expecting to be anointed at the time, and was a touch surprised. It must have been my winning smile. Still, one can't complain. -- franzi franzi filted: >Someone ought to find out what the full technical scope of anointing >is. I know the Greek word christos means anointed, and is used to mean [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >time, and was a touch surprised. It must have been my winning smile. >Still, one can't complain. "Pointy birds. Oh pointy, pointy. Anoint my head. Anointy, nointy." -- Steve Martin ....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle Forwarded message: Debunking Franz Gnaedinger, the "independent searcher" [ From: grapheus [ Date: 2 Dec 2004 06:41:50 -0800 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Thanks to Franz Gnaedinger himself, anybody knows today the true personality of this so-called "independent searcher" . Leaving a monastic school before finishing his scolarity, at the great disappointment of his family, Franz Gnaedinger spent 5 or 6 years "jobbing" as he says, because his father, fed up by his idleness and incapacity to have a regular life, had frown him out of home. After partially attending an Art school, he persuaded himself to be a genius, a kind of hybrid between Leonardo da Vinci and Albert Einstein, and began playing on USENET the role of a "serious" independent searcher in Mathematics and Archaeology, insulting people who dared put his words in doubt, slandering true scientists, writing urbi et orbi to Institutions and journals to give HIS opinion about anything or to sollicit for a grant or a prize "to make HIS ideas known"... To know better this guy and not to be deluded by his statements, I recommend to read the threads he has opened, and the opinion of many people about him, like, for instance, http://minilien.com/?Y566cmVzjD grapheus End of forwarded article from: http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2004-12/0093.html Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi Om Shanti o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read, considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number. o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article. FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one or more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several times. R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>: >bwana@invalid.com filted: Are you sure it was he? >>What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ >>keep calling him Jesus Christ. Isn't the core of the question whether [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >What would everyone else call him, then?..."Jesus bar Joseph"?... NSOED says, of "Christ": "(The title, now usu. treated as a name, given to) Jesus of Nazareth". I certainly regarded it as a name: I had no idea that it was supposed to be a title. Actually I think I use it only as an intensifier when cursing. If that "weakens the appearance of [my] argument", someone's clutching at straws. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>: >>bwana@invalid.com filted: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >that it was supposed to be a title. Actually I think I use it only as an >intensifier when cursing. It's an epithet, or a soubriquet -- I keep forgetting which is which. SignatureSteve 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 > bwana@invalid.com filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > "Josh Carpenter"?...r Refer to him by his full name, of course: Jesus f.cking Christ. Lewis filted: >> bwana@invalid.com filted: >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Refer to him by his full name, of course: Jesus f.cking Christ. H stands for f.cking?...r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > Lewis filted: >>> bwana@invalid.com filted: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > H stands for f.cking?...r Normal development of initial "f" in Spanish. SignatureJames > Lewis filted: >>> bwana@invalid.com filted: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > H stands for f.cking?...r "f.cking Hell", the new Austrian beer (name approved by the EEC). SignatureRob Bannister >Lewis filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >H stands for f.cking?...r If a word that starts with "J" can be pronounced like an "H", then an "H" can be pronounced like an "F". SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida tony cooper filted: >>H stands for f.cking?...r > >If a word that starts with "J" can be pronounced like an "H", then an >"H" can be pronounced like an "F". Ah, like Japanese, where "hitotsu" and "futatsu" begin with the same consonant....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > Lewis filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > H stands for f.cking?...r Must have another middle name? >> “A diploma is a very personal item, and people want to proudly >> display it in their offices and homes,” said Sidra Qureshi, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > their argument, or the argument itself, when they call him by a title > one would otherwise think they think he doesn't deserve. A lot of people don't know that it's a title. (I bet there are some people who even think that it was his surname.) Someone who is not from a Judeo-Christian background would be even less likely to know. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. [..."Jesus Christ"...] > A lot of people don't know that it's a title. (I bet there are some > people who even think that it was his surname.) Someone who is not > from a Judeo-Christian background would be even less likely to know. Ah, that expression again! I've been pondering the term "Jud(a)eo-Christian", or its more recent uses, lately. In this case, what's "Judeo" about the "Christ" bit? SignatureMike. > [..."Jesus Christ"...] >> A lot of people don't know that it's a title. (I bet there are some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Jud(a)eo-Christian", or its more recent uses, lately. In this case, > what's "Judeo" about the "Christ" bit? It depends on which brand of Christianity you're talking about. Conservative Christianity, as represented by the Catholics, the Anglicans, and a few others, focus on Pauline doctrines and take very little from Jewish tradition. The more fundamentalist Christians, on the other hand, ignore most of the New Testament and get most of their orgasms from the nastier parts of the bible. My reason for using "Judaeo-Christian" - thanks for supply the letter I dropped - in this case was because I suspect that Jews are more conscious of the meaning of "Christ" than most Christians are. The Christians who do understand that it's a title are the ones who understand why it was so important to trace the genealogy of Jesus, through his father who against all tradition was probably his real father, back to David. In other words, the ones who realised that he didn't deserve the title until after he had kicked out the Romans. (He didn't? Well, minor detail.) SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > [..."Jesus Christ"...] >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "Jud(a)eo-Christian", or its more recent uses, lately. In this case, > what's "Judeo" about the "Christ" bit? As Archie Bunker said --- after he arrived to give a eulogy at a colleague's funeral and was surprised to find it in a synagogue, and Edith shouted "Here, don't forget your beanie!" as he was heading up to the lectern [1] --- "Sorry, I didn't know he was Jewish, so there were a couple of things about Jesus in here," waving his notes, "but anyway Jesus was a Jew until God told him 'No more of that.'" (This is from memory from about 20 years ago, so it's not an exact quote.) [1] If this is not the right term for it in a synagogue, I don't know what it should be, & I'm sorry. SignatureOh, I do most of my quality thinking on the old sandbox. [Bucky Katt] > What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ > keep calling him Jesus Christ. Disambiguation, for one. Arguments that "Jesus is not an actual historical person." are rather easily disproven by pointing to any one of numerous people with that name. (-: >> What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ >> keep calling him Jesus Christ. >> >Disambiguation, for one. Arguments that "Jesus is not an actual >historical person." are rather easily disproven by pointing to any one >of numerous people with that name. (-: Here in southern Arizona it's a commonplace. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ >>> keep calling him Jesus Christ. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Here in southern Arizona it's a commonplace. This is interesting in itself. Is it all of Latin America, and Spain, where Jesus is a currently given name? Or is it just Mexico, and why Mexico? >>>> What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ >>>> keep calling him Jesus Christ. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >where Jesus is a currently given name? Or is it just Mexico, and why >Mexico? ya got me. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus >>>> Christ keep calling him Jesus Christ. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > where Jesus is a currently given name? Or is it just Mexico, and why > Mexico? I think he was referring to the name Yehoshua (the Hebrew name of Jesus), as there were many people of that name in Judea in biblical times. It was almost as common as John is today. And yes, Jesus is a common name in Spain. I don't know about all of Latin America, but I would assume it's common there as well. SignatureSmiler The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer ... > >>> Disambiguation, for one. Arguments that "Jesus is not an actual > >>> historical person." are rather easily disproven by pointing to any [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > there were many people of that name in Judea in biblical times. > It was almost as common as John is today. I'm pretty sure he was referring to the Spanish name Jesus. There are lots of people of Mexican birth or descent in southern Arizona. > And yes, Jesus is a common name in Spain. I don't know about all of Latin > America, but I would assume it's common there as well. Common enough in Mexico that in one of the few "Ask a Mexican" columns I've read, the author used the nickname "Chuy" as a general term for a Mexican man. (Don't bother searching for "Ask a Mexican"--most of the links on the home page are broken.) -- Jerry Friedman >... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I'm pretty sure he was referring to the Spanish name Jesus. There are >lots of people of Mexican birth or descent in southern Arizona. Yeah, that was my thinking about what he meant. >> And yes, Jesus is a common name in Spain. I don't know about all of Latin >> America, but I would assume it's common there as well. > >Common enough in Mexico that in one of the few "Ask a Mexican" columns >I've read, the author used the nickname "Chuy" as a general term for a >Mexican man. But what does Chuy have to do with Jesus? Oh, it's a nickname for Jesus. You left that out. :) http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=420397 Another one is Chucho, it says. And Chewey seems to be a nickname for Chuy, although the poster is not sure of the spelling and isn't the use of W a reflection of the influence of English?. I guess I'm forgetting my Spanish. I can't even remember if it has a W. Also "Jesus "Chuy" Garcia for Cook County Commissioner - 7th District" >(Don't bother searching for "Ask a Mexican"--most of the links on the >home page are broken.) >>Common enough in Mexico that in one of the few "Ask a Mexican" columns >>I've read, the author used the nickname "Chuy" as a general term for a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Also "Jesus "Chuy" Garcia for Cook County Commissioner - 7th District" Ah ha. You seem to be explaining whre the name of a western chain of eateries came about. http://www.bajachuys.com/ Which is not, to my surprise, the same as: http://www.chuys.com/ which I had not heard of before googling for "chuy's" Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * ... > But what does Chuy have to do with Jesus? > > Oh, it's a nickname for Jesus. You left that out. :) Sorry about that. > http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=420397 > Another one is Chucho, it says. "S" and "z" and soft "c" turn into "ch" in Spanish baby talk and therefore in nicknames, as in "Conchita" for "Concepcion", "Nacho" for "Ignacio", "Pancho" for "Francisco", etc. As the archbishop says in the joke about the drunk priest, "No nos referimos a Jesús y sus discípulos como 'Chuy y sus compas'." "We do not refer to Jesus and his disciples as 'Chuy and his buddies.'" http://www.famosasmexicanas.net/showthread.php?t=3445 > And Chewey seems to be a nickname > for Chuy, although the poster is not sure of the spelling and isn't > the use of W a reflection of the influence of English?. I guess I'm > forgetting my Spanish. I can't even remember if it has a W. ... Only in a few borrowed words. "Chewey" is someone's attempt to write "Chuy" with English spelling. -- Jerry Friedman > What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ > keep calling him Jesus Christ. Isn't the core of the question whether > he was a christ or not? It seems to me they weaken the appearance of > their argument, or the argument itself, when they call him by a title > one would otherwise think they think he doesn't deserve. Because most people think "Christ" is his surname - Mrs Mary Christ had a baby and called it Jesus Harold Christ. SignatureRob Bannister >> What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ >> keep calling him Jesus Christ. Isn't the core of the question whether [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Because most people think "Christ" is his surname - Mrs Mary Christ had >a baby and called it Jesus Harold Christ. Jesus Haploid Christ... Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 07:55:08 +0800, Robert Bannister > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jesus Haploid Christ... *chuckle out loud* -- Jerry Friedman >> What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ >> keep calling him Jesus Christ. Isn't the core of the question whether [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Because most people think "Christ" is his surname - Mrs Mary Christ had >a baby and called it Jesus Harold Christ. Okay, you guys have convinced me that is the reason, even among those with Jewish or Christian backgrounds. I guess the ex(?)-governor of Florida doesn't help. >>> What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ >>> keep calling him Jesus Christ. Isn't the core of the question whether [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I guess the ex(?)-governor of Florida doesn't help. Most of us in Florida wish he had been ex- long before this. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:41:10 +0800, Robert Bannister >><robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > wording, arguing that references to the school's Presbyterian roots > are appropriate and unobtrusive. Presumably one of those 1 April news items. If the protest was genuine then they would surely have begun with the name of the university, unless they were too thick to twig it, in which case they wouldn't have deserved diplomas anyway. SignatureSteve 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 > Presumably one of those 1 April news items. > > If the protest was genuine then they would surely have begun with the name of > the university, unless they were too thick to twig it, in which case they > wouldn't have deserved diplomas anyway. I checked: 29 March! SignatureI spend almost as much time figuring out what's wrong with my computer as I do actually using it. Networked software, especially, requires frequent updates and maintenance, all of which gets in the way of doing routine work. (Stoll 1995) > ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > > Why would you put "C.E." on a cornerstone? If it means the same thing as AD ... > It makes no sense to use "A.D." in any context that isn't explicitly > Christian, which is why "C.E." was invented in the middle of the last > century. Funny, then, that exactly that has been done for over a thousand years. Andrew Usher > > ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Funny, then, that exactly that has been done for over a thousand > years. And for how many of those thousand years have those elided agents of the passive verb given a damn about the non-Christian majority of the world's inhabitants? >>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>> Why would you put "C.E." on a cornerstone? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the passive verb given a damn about the non-Christian majority of the > world's inhabitants? Very few people - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist - object to days of the week named mainly after Norse gods in the Germanic languages or Roman gods in the Romance languages, nor do you hear a clamour to rename the months, whose names appear in even more languages. People who get upset about a little thing like "AD" are just looking for something to complain about. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? >>>> Why would you put "C.E." on a cornerstone? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > get upset about a little thing like "AD" are just looking for something > to complain about. Ah, you mean people who go out every night carrying baseball bats looking for somebody to defend themself against? pjk > Very few people - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist - object > to days of the week named mainly after Norse gods in the Germanic > languages or Roman gods in the Romance languages, [...] ... probably because in in their languages the days of the week aren't necessarily so named. Pop quiz: Posit that you're a Muslim, speaking Turkish. What are the days of the week named after in your language? Posit that you're a Muslim, speaking Arabic. What are the days of the week named after in your language? Posit that you're a Christian, speaking Lithuanian. What are the days of the week named after in your language? >> Very few people - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist - object >> to days of the week named mainly after Norse gods in the Germanic [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > speaking Lithuanian. What are the days of the week named after in your > language? I somehow doubt that any of these ever used the phrase "anno domini" either. SignatureRob Bannister > >> Very few people - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist - object > >> to days of the week named mainly after Norse gods in the Germanic [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I somehow doubt that any of these ever used the phrase "anno domini" either. [convenient place to put this, rather than looking for the _message juste_] I'm at the American Oriental Society annual meeting in St. Louis, and I asked Peter Machinist, professor of, among other things, Jewish History at Harvard, about the introduction of CE. He doesn't know who, exactly, was responsible, but volunteered that it's a post-Holocaust phenomenon. > I'm at the American Oriental Society annual meeting in St. Louis, > and I asked Peter Machinist, professor of, among other things, > Jewish History at Harvard, about the introduction of CE. > > He doesn't know who, exactly, was responsible, but volunteered that > it's a post-Holocaust phenomenon. Did you point out that you had seen evidence that it was in use in 1856? If so, what was his reaction? And that wasn't an isolated publication. I see use in the _Journal of Sacred Literature in 1859. (Interestingly there, I see one article that constrasts "B.C.E" with "A.C.E" and another that contrasts "B.C." with "C.E.".) Also in the title of a book listed in a book on the Talmud that appears to have been printed in 1890. An 1886 _Outlines of Jewish History_ is subtitled "From B.C. 586 to C.E. 1885" but uses "B.C.E." in a table of dates. There are a couple of dozen Google Books hits in the 1880s and about twice that in the 1890s, so I'd guess that that's where it started to become common. SignatureEvan 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/ > > I'm at the American Oriental Society annual meeting in St. Louis, > > and I asked Peter Machinist, professor of, among other things, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Did you point out that you had seen evidence that it was in use in > 1856? If so, what was his reaction? 1856? I thought the single example presented earlier was from the 1830s? Surprise. > And that wasn't an isolated publication. I see use in the _Journal of > Sacred Literature in 1859. (Interestingly there, I see one article [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Books hits in the 1880s and about twice that in the 1890s, so I'd > guess that that's where it started to become common. The Jewish Encyclopedia website claims there are 50 hits for the phrase, but it refuses to show me the 2nd through 5th pages of results. >> > I'm at the American Oriental Society annual meeting in St. Louis, >> > and I asked Peter Machinist, professor of, among other things, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Surprise. That was his reaction? SignatureEvan 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/ > >> > I'm at the American Oriental Society annual meeting in St. Louis, > >> > and I asked Peter Machinist, professor of, among other things, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > That was his reaction? Yes, that was his reaction. >> >> > I'm at the American Oriental Society annual meeting in >> >> > St. Louis, and I asked Peter Machinist, professor of, among [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Yes, that was his reaction. Thanks, the way you phrased it in the simple present tense as "volunteered that it's a post-Holocaust phenomenon" rather than something like "volunteered that he thought it was a post-Holocaust phenomenon" made it sound as though you hadn't disabused him of his belief. SignatureEvan 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/ > >> >> > I'm at the American Oriental Society annual meeting in > >> >> > St. Louis, and I asked Peter Machinist, professor of, among [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > phenomenon" made it sound as though you hadn't disabused him of his > belief. The phenomenon didn't go out of existence at some point between the Holocaust and now. Perhaps you missed my response to Brian about why I said "rabbit-like" instead of "rabbit." And unless you're an ultra-Generative Semanticist such as never existed when Generative Semantics analyses were being promulgated, you should know that people don't generally preface their opinions, or even reports of opinions, with "I think that" or "I say that X thinks that." >> >> >> > I'm at the American Oriental Society annual meeting in >> >> >> > St. Louis, and I asked Peter Machinist, professor of, among [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Perhaps you missed my response to Brian about why I said "rabbit-like" > instead of "rabbit." So his use of "post-Holocaust" could just as easily have been "post- Woodstock" or "post-9/11" or "post-New Deal"? It started nearly a century before the Holocaust and has never "gone out of existence" since at least the 1880s. So it's a "post-Holocaust phenomenon" and a "pre-Holocaust phenomenon" and a "has-nothing-to-do-with-the-Holocaust phenomenon". Personally, I'd say that calling something a "post-Holocaust phenomenon" without meaning to imply that it arose soon after the Holocaust (let alone that its rise had something to do with the Holocaust) violates at least one or two Gricean Maxims (quantity and/or relevance). > And unless you're an ultra-Generative Semanticist such as never > existed when Generative Semantics analyses were being promulgated, > you should know that people don't generally preface their opinions, > or even reports of opinions, with "I think that" or "I say that X > thinks that." It's not the lack of indirectness that bothered me. It was your use of "it's" rather than "it was" and the fact that it reads as though you left him to persist in his mistaken belief, even though you knew it to be false. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Well, if you can't believe what you 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |read in a comic book, what can you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |believe?! | Bullwinkle J. Moose kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> >> >> > I'm at the American Oriental Society annual meeting in > >> >> >> > St. Louis, and I asked Peter Machinist, professor of, among [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Holocaust) violates at least one or two Gricean Maxims (quantity > and/or relevance). That is PRECISELY what he (and I) "meant to imply" (to use another double-barreled Higher Predicate). By no means did you demonstrate that "C.E." had anything like the widespread acceptance and usage before WWII that it has today. It must have been so unusual -- perhaps confined to a certain stratum of secular Jewish intellectual -- that atttention needed to be called to it in the new political climate of the 1950s. > > And unless you're an ultra-Generative Semanticist such as never > > existed when Generative Semantics analyses were being promulgated, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you left him to persist in his mistaken belief, even though you knew > it to be false. It may be "false" in that a certain limited population apparently found it useful on occasion. It is not false in describing general usage among practitioners of the historical sciences who are sensitive to Western chauvinism. BTW who do you imagine the readership of the Journal of Sacred Literature to have been, and how widely read it was? There is AFAIK _one_ run of it in the US, which (fortunately for me) is in Ann Arbor, where I was able to make copies of Edward Hincks's vitally important articles on Akkadian grammar -- and it's the copy that now appears in google books. >> >> Thanks, the way you phrased it in the simple present tense as >> >> "volunteered that it's a post-Holocaust phenomenon" rather than [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > -- that atttention needed to be called to it in the new political > climate of the 1950s. I see. I don't believe that you had previously made clear that the "phenomenon" was "widespread acceptance and usage" rather than mere use. I clearly can't address that until you define what you mean by "widespread" and establish the level it has today. I don't think I've found it to be particularly common outside of Jewish writers (certainly when compared to AD/BC), and it's not clear to me that among them it was any more or less common before World War II than after. (And it's by no means universal among them. Richard Elliott Friedman, for example, uses "BC" in _Who Wrote the Bible?_) >> > And unless you're an ultra-Generative Semanticist such as never >> > existed when Generative Semantics analyses were being promulgated, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > usage among practitioners of the historical sciences who are > sensitive to Western chauvinism. Since it would otherwise be astonishing from someone who castigated another for using "everyone" to the exclusion of women, I have to presume that your "general usage among practitioners of the historical sciences" includes those who are Jewish and that these Jewish scholars changed from using "BC" to "BCE" following World War II out of sensitivity to Western chauvanism. > BTW who do you imagine the readership of the Journal of Sacred > Literature to have been, No idea. The editor of the first issue I looked at also edited _The New Testament from Codex A_, so I'm guessing that it wasn't exclusively Jewish. > and how widely read it was? Probably pretty small. > There is AFAIK _one_ run of it in the US, which (fortunately for me) > is in Ann Arbor, where I was able to make copies of Edward Hincks's > vitally important articles on Akkadian grammar -- and it's the copy > that now appears in google books. SignatureEvan 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/ > >> >> Thanks, the way you phrased it in the simple present tense as > >> >> "volunteered that it's a post-Holocaust phenomenon" rather than [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > use. I clearly can't address that until you define what you mean by > "widespread" and establish the level it has today. (a) I had no reason to suppose the expression existed before the mid 1950s/ (b) Come back when you've learned to comprehend ordinary conversational English. > I don't think I've found it to be particularly common outside of > Jewish writers (certainly when compared to AD/BC), and it's not clear > to me that among them it was any more or less common before World War > II than after. (And it's by no means universal among them. Richard > Elliott Friedman, for example, uses "BC" in _Who Wrote the Bible?_) (a) Do you read history or archeology? (b) Richard Eliot Friedman may well have been edited by his vulgarizing publisher (a division of HarperCollins, not surprisingly). And people I known in biblical studies don't have a terribly high opinion of his work. > >> > And unless you're an ultra-Generative Semanticist such as never > >> > existed when Generative Semantics analyses were being promulgated, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > changed from using "BC" to "BCE" following World War II out of > sensitivity to Western chauvanism. So that's what you presume, is it. > > BTW who do you imagine the readership of the Journal of Sacred > > Literature to have been, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > vitally important articles on Akkadian grammar -- and it's the copy > > that now appears in google books. > (a) I had no reason to suppose the expression existed before the mid > 1950s/ > > (b) Come back when you've learned to comprehend ordinary > conversational English. And there we are, the circle has just closed, we are right back at the start of the discussion again. And it's /your/ fault that you can't comprehend ordinary conversational English. It's really strange. The only person on the whole of Usenet who can comprehend ordinary conversational English is PTD. The rest of us must all speak something else (that is mutually comprehensible). I wonder which of "ordinary", "conversational" or "English"? Peter - sarcasm aside - if everybody consistently fails to understand you and be able to hold a sensible conversation with you, do you think you could you consider entertaining the possibility that just once or twice a millennium your written words fail to make your intended meaning absolutely crystal clear? SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk > > (a) I had no reason to suppose the expression existed before the mid > > 1950s/ [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > twice a millennium your written words fail to make your intended meaning > absolutely crystal clear? Would you like me to start nitpicking everything Brian or ERK writes, in the same fashion they do? It would be quite easy to do. >> Peter - sarcasm aside - if everybody consistently fails to understand >> you and be able to hold a sensible conversation with you, do you think [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Would you like me to start nitpicking everything Brian or ERK writes, >in the same fashion they do? It would be quite easy to do. Uh, How does that answer the question? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> > (b) Come back when you've learned to comprehend ordinary >> > conversational English. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Would you like me to start nitpicking everything Brian or ERK writes, > in the same fashion they do? It would be quite easy to do. Is that some kind of joke? You already nitpick as many other people's posts as you have time for. SignatureWhen Elaine turned 11, her mother sent her to train under Donald Knuth in his mountain hideaway. [XKCD 342] >> I'm at the American Oriental Society annual meeting in St. Louis, >> and I asked Peter Machinist, professor of, among other things, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Books hits in the 1880s and about twice that in the 1890s, so I'd > guess that that's where it started to become common. I wonder how the people who object to A.D. and (I think) A.C.N.* feel about the German "vor/nach Christi Geburt", which exactly describes what the calendar is attempting to represent. * My Latin has gone bad - something like ante Christi natum SignatureRob Bannister > >> I'm at the American Oriental Society annual meeting in St. Louis, > >> and I asked Peter Machinist, professor of, among other things, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > * My Latin has gone bad - something like ante Christi natum Have a look at how it's done in French. >>> I'm at the American Oriental Society annual meeting in St. Louis, >>> and I asked Peter Machinist, professor of, among other things, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > * My Latin has gone bad - something like ante Christi natum Ante Christum natum. Then there are the Irish expressions Be Jaysus and Ah Jaysus. SignatureJames >>>> I'm at the American Oriental Society annual meeting in St. Louis, >>>> and I asked Peter Machinist, professor of, among other things, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Then there are the Irish expressions Be Jaysus and Ah Jaysus. [polite applause] SignatureRob Bannister On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:33:25 +0800, Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in <news:80damoF3rfU1@mid.individual.net> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro: [...] > I wonder how the people who object to A.D. and (I think) > A.C.N.* feel about the German "vor/nach Christi Geburt", > which exactly describes what the calendar is attempting > to represent. German 'v./n. Chr.' are less objectionable than 'A.D.' for the same reason that 'A.C.N.' and 'B.C.' are, though '(v.) u. Z.' are much better than any of these. Brian > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:33:25 +0800, Robert Bannister > <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the same reason that 'A.C.N.' and 'B.C.' are, though '(v.) > u. Z.' are much better than any of these. The French is "av./ap. j.-c." Both these [Ger. & Fr.] formulations are as inappropriate to non-Christians as B.C. and A.D. because they ascribe Messiah-hood ("Christ") to Jesus, a doctrine accepted only by Christians (and possibly Mormons; the dioramas in the Salt Lake City museum were less than clear about the role of Jesus in their theology). On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:59:00 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:761607f4-0b0b-475c-ab27-cdffaa5e0f98@u33g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro: [...] >> German 'v./n. Chr.' are less objectionable than 'A.D.' for >> the same reason that 'A.C.N.' and 'B.C.' are, though '(v.) >> u. Z.' are much better than any of these. > The French is "av./ap. j.-c." Both these [Ger. & Fr.] > formulations are as inappropriate to non-Christians as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Salt Lake City museum were less than clear about the role > of Jesus in their theology). I'm sure that if you think about it hard enough, you can figure out why this is still less objectionable than 'A.D.' Brian > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:59:00 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'm sure that if you think about it hard enough, you can > figure out why this is still less objectionable than 'A.D.' I should think Messiah-hood, being indisputably spiritual, and so "higher" than merely mundane concerns, would be still more objectionable than lord-hood, which can be taken as merely temporal. >> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:33:25 +0800, Robert Bannister >> <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Christians (and possibly Mormons; the dioramas in the Salt Lake City > museum were less than clear about the role of Jesus in their theology). You seem to assume that "Christ" is understood to mean "Messiah" to most people, whereas I believe the vast majority think it's just part of Jesus' name. Merriam-Webster gives the following meanings: 1 : messiah 2 : jesus 3 : an ideal type of humanity 4 Christian Science : the ideal truth that comes as a divine manifestation of God to destroy incarnate error I would take meaning 2 as being the most commonly understood one. SignatureRob Bannister > The French is "av./ap. j.-c." Both these [Ger. & Fr.] formulations > are as inappropriate to non-Christians as B.C. and A.D. because they > ascribe Messiah-hood ("Christ") to Jesus, a doctrine accepted only > by Christians (and possibly Mormons; the dioramas in the Salt Lake > City museum were less than clear about the role of Jesus in their > theology). According to Rex Lee's _What Do Mormons Believe?_ (written from a Mormon position), Mormons, who consider themselves to be Christians, consider Jesus Christ (who they so name) to be the Son of God, a member of the Godhead, Jehovah, the Creator, a person, and Savior. The word "messiah" does not seem to appear, at least in the chapter discussing their conception of their deities. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Feeling good about government is like 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |looking on the bright side of any Palo Alto, CA 94304 |catastrophe. When you quit looking |on the bright side, the catastrophe kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |is still there. (650)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:33:25 +0800, Robert Bannister > <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the same reason that 'A.C.N.' and 'B.C.' are, though '(v.) > u. Z.' are much better than any of these. The part that puzzles me is: the small proportion of the population that knows what A.D. stands for knows "anno domini", but "the year of our lord" should surely offend only atheists, since all the others have a "lord", whether they call it Adonai, Jehovah, Allah, Krishna or whatever. Very few people would be aware of the full title "year of our lord Jesus Christ etc." and since the remainder does not show up in the A.D., I find it hard to accept that A.D. includes any of that stuff. SignatureRob Bannister On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:13:11 +0800, Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in <news:80g1daFif4U1@mid.individual.net> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro: >> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:33:25 +0800, Robert Bannister >> <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in >> <news:80damoF3rfU1@mid.individual.net> in >> sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro: >> [...] >>> I wonder how the people who object to A.D. and (I think) >>> A.C.N.* feel about the German "vor/nach Christi Geburt", >>> which exactly describes what the calendar is attempting >>> to represent. >> German 'v./n. Chr.' are less objectionable than 'A.D.' for >> the same reason that 'A.C.N.' and 'B.C.' are, though '(v.) >> u. Z.' are much better than any of these. > The part that puzzles me is: the small proportion of the > population that knows what A.D. stands for knows "anno > domini", but "the year of our lord" should surely offend > only atheists, since all the others have a "lord", > whether they call it Adonai, Jehovah, Allah, Krishna or > whatever. First, this isn't true: off the top of my head you've excluded followers of Shinto, Taoism, Vodun, Wicca, Kemetism, Romuva, and Ásatrú, and arguably some followers of Hinduism. Secondly, the lord in question is obviously the Christian lord. [...] Brian > The part that puzzles me is: the small proportion of the population > that knows what A.D. stands for knows "anno domini", but "the year of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in the A.D., I find it hard to accept that A.D. includes any of that > stuff. As M. Scott said, you've ignored rather a lot of religions there. You've even ignored the fact that all of the other "lord"s weren't (supposedly) circumcised on January the 1st, A.D. 1. >> The part that puzzles me is: the small proportion of the population >> that knows what A.D. stands for knows "anno domini", but "the year of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You've even ignored the fact that all of the other "lord"s weren't > (supposedly) circumcised on January the 1st, A.D. 1. Conceded. I'm an atheist, and I just forget about all these different gods and whether they had their private parts cut or not. I think "Before/After Jesus" would have been a better choice. "CE" for "Christian Era" is fine, except it implies that Christianity rules - oh, you're going to claim it stands for "Common Era" - no doubt the people who hate "A.D." believe that (not). SignatureRob Bannister On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:46:25 +0800, Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in <news:80lc3kFnl9U1@mid.individual.net> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro,alt.religion.kibology: [...] >> As M. Scott said, you've ignored rather a lot of religions there. >> You've even ignored the fact that all of the other "lord"s weren't >> (supposedly) circumcised on January the 1st, A.D. 1. > Conceded. I'm an atheist, and I just forget about all these different > gods and whether they had their private parts cut or not. Mileage varies: I've never had the slightest use for religion, which is one of the main reasons that I tend *not* to forget about them. > I think "Before/After Jesus" would have been a better choice. "CE" for > "Christian Era" is fine, except it implies that Christianity rules - oh, > you're going to claim it stands for "Common Era" - no doubt the people > who hate "A.D." believe that (not). I much prefer 'CE' to 'AD', and yes, I do take it to stand for 'Common Era': that was how I learnt it in the first place. Brian > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:46:25 +0800, Robert Bannister > <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > for 'Common Era': that was how I learnt it in the first > place. I prefer something like "Common Year" to "Common Era". The former is more like a convention/scale/unit (cf "Celsius") whereas the latter implies that there was/is a common recognition about "the era". Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr > > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:46:25 +0800, Robert Bannister > > <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > latter implies that there was/is a common recognition about > "the era". But there is! "Era" simply refers to the numeration system. We're in an Era in which the current year is numbered 2010. The Jewish calendar uses an Era that begins with the creation of the universe 5770 years ago. Before BC/AD caught on, dates were often given in years of the Seleucid Era (in the overall course of history, the Seleucid Kingdom wasn't terribly significant). And before that, AUC (Ab Urbe Condite, the legendary founding of Rome). But lots of places didn't use absolute dates like those. Mesopotamia and Egypt used kings' regnal years; for a long time, years in Mesopotamia were named retrospectively for an important event that occurred in that year, its "eponym," and there are "eponym lists" that correlate those names with regnal years. >>> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>>> "Common Era" - no doubt the people who hate "A.D." believe that >>>> (not). I have no quarrel with AD, but of course CE stands for "common era". People all over the world, with no interest at all in Christianity, use that system because it is the one that everyone else can understand. Common, like. >>> I much prefer 'CE' to 'AD', and yes, I do take it to stand >>> for 'Common Era': that was how I learnt it in the first [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that year, its "eponym," and there are "eponym lists" that > correlate those names with regnal years. And Olympiads for some. On a pure note of nitpickery, with respect to what is no doubt a typo, that's "ab urbe condita" (long "a"), "from the-City-having-been-founded". A very Latinate construction, as my grade 12 teacher would point out to us, her large grey eyes glistening with an enthusiasm hardly less moist than that with which she had recounted the desecration of Hector's body. >>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:46:25 +0800, Robert Bannister >>> <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > "eponym," and there are "eponym lists" that correlate those names with > regnal years. Nonetheless, the English word "era" has come to acquire a second meaning, namely a period identified by a prominent figure or characteristics. Also, as you mentioned, the change of the numeration system has been historically aligned with the change of political or religious powers. Thus, using the word "era" in a calendrical name would inevitably evoke the second sense of the word, adding connotation (intended or not) to the numeration system. Thus there is a subtle difference between "Common Year" and "Common Era". In other words, "Common Era" sounds more eponymous than "Common Year". And since the numeration of "Common Era" is the same as "Anno Domini", the net impression, at least to some non-Christians, is that Christians hijack "common". Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:46:25 +0800, Robert Bannister >> <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > latter implies that there was/is a common recognition about > "the era". It seems to me that the choice between "Christian" and "Common" is a minor detail compared with the glaring inappropriateness of the word "Era". Surely that means a span of years, with a beginning and an end. "Christian Era" does make sense, even to non-Christians, but it does seem to imply a commitment to switching to a new numbering system once Christianity goes extinct. "Common Era" has the same problem. It suggests that sooner or later we will move on to the next era. The "Aristocratic Era", perhaps. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:46:25 +0800, Robert Bannister > >> <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > "Common Era" has the same problem. It suggests that sooner or later we > will move on to the next era. The "Aristocratic Era", perhaps. Diuturnal time gives me trouble too. I'm still engaged in a personal wrestling match with 'epoch', which by and large refuses to mean what I want it to mean. The year 2010, epoch Christus or Khristos, would work in a Christian society, but not elsewhere I presume. Luckily epoch and era are quite close neighbours in the dictionary. The respective entries in the Oxford works are stuffed with cross- references, and you may as well look them up yourselves. -- franzi > >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:46:25 +0800, Robert Bannister > >> <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > minor detail compared with the glaring inappropriateness of the word > "Era". Surely that means a span of years, with a beginning and an end. There's no "surely" about it. "Era" is simply the word for that particular phenomenon. > "Christian Era" does make sense, even to non-Christians, but it does > seem to imply a commitment to switching to a new numbering system once > Christianity goes extinct. > > "Common Era" has the same problem. It suggests that sooner or later we > will move on to the next era. The "Aristocratic Era", perhaps. Peter T. Daniels (read in alt.usage.english): >> >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:46:25 +0800, Robert Bannister >> >> <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > There's no "surely" about it. "Era" is simply the word for that > particular phenomenon. Wouldn't "Before Christian/Common Epoch be more appropriate than era? Or is the era of a calendar only meant to denote the time after the epoch? Unfortunately, outside the technical language of calendar specialists, epoch means a time span, too. Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 79: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TEWQZ5tLD0> My favourite # 47: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKDAbp9m5yw> > "Common Era" has the same problem. It suggests that sooner or later we > will move on to the next era. The "Aristocratic Era", perhaps. Apparently the "common" in "Common Era" isn't (as I had thought) due to it being "in common" among many groups but rather that it was the dating that didn't refer to royalty, as in "in the sixth year of King So-and-so's reign". It was the "vulgaris æræ". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A little government and a little luck 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |are necessary in life, but only a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fool trusts either of them. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [a.u.e. only] ... > Apparently the "common" in "Common Era" isn't (as I had thought) due > to it being "in common" among many groups but rather that it was the > dating that didn't refer to royalty, as in "in the sixth year of King > So-and-so's reign". It was the "vulgaris æræ". Thanks, I learned something today. -- Jerry Friedman > [a.u.e. only] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thanks, I learned something today. Me too, but I would have to be convinced. Whatever you call it, that dating is based on the reign of King Jesus. Could you cite your source? >> [a.u.e. only] >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > dating is based on the reign of King Jesus. Could you cite your > source? News to me, too. Perhaps we could avoid communal conflict by calling it "V.E." for "Vulgar Era". ("Era", by the way, is another one of those unfortunate diphthong-squashes; but we can't blame America for this one.) On the derivation, I find OED has <1716 PRIDEAUX Connect. O. & N.T. I. I. 1 The vulgar era, by which we now compute the years from his incarnation. > Irritatingly, Auntie Dictionary, while recognizing "Common era", doesn't provide an example. SignatureMike. >>> [a.u.e. only] Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote: ... >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > one of those unfortunate diphthong-squashes; but we can't blame > America for this one.) Goes well with "vulgar". With "common" too, of course. > On the derivation, I find OED has <1716 PRIDEAUX Connect. O. & N.T. > I. I. 1 The vulgar era, by which we now compute the years from his > incarnation. > Irritatingly, Auntie Dictionary, while recognizing > "Common era", doesn't provide an example. Thank you. My SOED3 gives the required meaning of "common" from ME, so I suppose it's possible, although I still don't like it. (The "mean, vulgar" meaning is dated to 1866.) Nothing on "Common Era" at all. On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:36:07 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote in <news:17idnXlt8YDEAjvWnZ2dnUVZ8tqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro: [...] >>> I much prefer 'CE' to 'AD', and yes, I do take it to stand >>> for 'Common Era': that was how I learnt it in the first >>> place. >> I prefer something like "Common Year" to "Common Era". The former >> is more like a convention/scale/unit (cf "Celsius") whereas the >> latter implies that there was/is a common recognition about >> "the era". > It seems to me that the choice between "Christian" and "Common" is a > minor detail compared with the glaring inappropriateness of the word > "Era". Surely that means a span of years, with a beginning and an end. That is only one meaning. Another is 'a fixed point in time from which a series of years is reckoned', and yet another -- the one in use here -- is 'a system of chronological notation computed from a given date as basis'. Brian >> It seems to me that the choice between "Christian" and "Common" is a >> minor detail compared with the glaring inappropriateness of the word [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- the one in use here -- is 'a system of chronological > notation computed from a given date as basis'. Cf. "epoch" (but you count seconds from that point). SignatureTake it? I can't even parse it! [Kibo] > On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:36:07 +1100, Peter Moylan > <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > -- the one in use here -- is 'a system of chronological > notation computed from a given date as basis'. It's all confused by the way the Americans pronounce it: "error" to non-rhotic ears. SignatureRob Bannister >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:36:07 +1100, Peter Moylan >> <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote in >> <news:17idnXlt8YDEAjvWnZ2dnUVZ8tqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au> >> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro: [...] >>> It seems to me that the choice between "Christian" >>> and "Common" is a minor detail compared with the >>> glaring inappropriateness of the word "Era". Surely >>> that means a span of years, with a beginning and an >>> end. >> That is only one meaning. Another is 'a fixed point in >> time from which a series of years is reckoned', and yet >> another -- the one in use here -- is 'a system of >> chronological notation computed from a given date as >> basis'. > It's all confused by the way the Americans pronounce it: > "error" to non-rhotic ears. 'Americans' is much too broad: many Americans pronounce the first syllable to rhyme with <ear>. Brian >>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:36:07 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> >>> wrote in <news:17idnXlt8YDEAjvWnZ2dnUVZ8tqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Brian Thank you. I knew a lot of them were civilised; it's just that I keep hearing "error" on TV. SignatureRob Bannister >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > does not show up in the A.D., I find it hard to accept that A.D. > includes any of that stuff. JC was the one whose birth established the point counted up or down to. Roughly. In sci.astro message <IU.D20100312.T120256.P11159.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard. localhost>, Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:02:43, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> posted: >> Very few people - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist - object >>to days of the week named mainly after Norse gods in the Germanic [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >speaking Lithuanian. What are the days of the week named after in your >language? Google Translate will tell you that. The Lithuanian (and Latvian) ones are clearly derived from the numbers one to seven, and ISO 8601 agrees with their numbering scheme. AFAIK, all of those languages are unaffected by the beliefs of their speakers. Signature(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc. On Mar 12, 8:02 am, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: > > Very few people - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist - object > > to days of the week named mainly after Norse gods in the Germanic > > languages or Roman gods in the Romance languages, [...] > > ... probably because in in their languages the days of the week aren't > necessarily so named. Pop quiz: Posit that you're a Muslim, speaking Turkish. What are the days of the week true, Turkish does not have the planetary or pagan names of the week, but there are a few Latin based month names. > named after in your language? > Posit that you're a Muslim, speaking Arabic. What are the days of the muslim and arab christians use the same names for the days of the week. true, they are based on numbers, except for Friday and Saturday, but the Roman names of the solar months are common (except in Libya), except where the Syriac months are used (the Levant and Iraq), and they too contain names of old pagan gods (like tammu:z for July after a Sumerian / Assyrian god - king). > week named after in your language? Posit that you're a Christian, > speaking Lithuanian. What are the days of the week named after in your > language? muslim usage for the christian era is based on the word mi:la:d ("birth time"), afetr all, Jesus is recognized as an important prophet in Islam. > > > In sci.astro message <c25693ae-2696-4e7c-a878-392c0d2d0...@d27g2000yqf.g > > > ooglegroups.com>, Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:18:50, Peter T. Daniels [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It makes no sense to use "A.D." in any context that isn't explicitly > Christian, which is why "C.E." was invented in the middle of the last also a reminder of the mistakes in calculation and historical reconstruction made by the monk who designed the era. > century. well, actually many muslim countries use the arabic term mi:la:di: litt. "concerning the birthday" (except Libya, which under Qadhdhafi invented its own solar era starting with the tradional birthyear of Muhammad and called it "mi:la:di:"). usually al-mi:la:d refers to the birthday of Jesus (recognized as a very important prophet) while other synonyms are used for that of Muhammad. I had assumed that "Year of Our Lord" would be objectionable to muslims, as they do not recognize as divine. but a western convert from Christianity argued that the Latin word used was not objectionable for reasons of detail that I forgot. > > > > In sci.astro message <c25693ae-2696-4e7c-a878-392c0d2d0...@d27g2000yqf.g > > > > ooglegroups.com>, Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:18:50, Peter T. Daniels [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Latin word used was not objectionable for reasons of detail that I > forgot. here is the argument: (I do not agree with the last part of his post, as AD or CE refer to the time when either the Julian and Gregorian systems were used in reckoning) In article <bt14ke$5i...@pcls4.std.com>, > Normally I don't comment on this but well, if you follow the Qur'an > you ought to have trouble with "Anno Domini" (Year of the Lord). > if you are a muslim, there should be trouble with refering to > Jesus (`Isa) as "the Lord", a muslim would reserve this to God, > who "is not begotten". This is not entirely correct. The latin word "dominus" translates the Greek word "kyrios" and the Greek "kyrios" does NOT mean God but is a title of respect both God (the Father) and for men in general. It is the Greek equivalent (even today) for the English word "mister" (originally "master") and the Spanish word "senor", which means both the Lord (in religious contexts) and Mister. In the Hebrew Old Testament, God is called "Adonai", which the early English translators rendered as "Lord" and in the Greek New Testament, Jesus is called "kyrios", meaning master, teacher, monsieur, senor, etc., which the same translators rendered as "Lord". The Arabic word for "mister" is "sayyid" and Muslims do indeed call Jesus "sayyiduna" or "sidna", which is translated as Our Lord (monsieur, senor). The same title is given to Muhammad. However, when Allah is referred to, the word is "rabb", which is usually translated into English as "Lord" and "rabb" is NEVER used to refer to Jesus or any ordinary man. The expression "anno domini" (in the year of the Lord) simply means in the era that began with the birth of Our Lord Jesus (sayyiduna Isa) and the word Lord in that context means nothing more than it meant when spoken by the Biblical Canaanite woman, who calls Jesus "Lord" (Matthew 15:26). It simply means "sir" or "master" (kyrios), not Lord God (Adonai Elohenu). Since Muslims know that calendars are arbitrary systems for tracking time and since we accept the prophetic mission of Jesus and his role as Messiah, calling him Lord (kyrios, sayyid) is not offensive. Those who prefer C.E. (common era) include people who reject entirely the prophetic and messianic mission of Jesus and others who prefer to avoid any religious reference. A more logical name for the A.D. (or C.E.) calendar is "Gregorian" since Pope Gregory sponsored the calendar reform that replace the previous Julian calendar. Although Gregory was in part motivated by religious factors, he also recognized that the Julian calendar simply did not work and was not accurate for keeping time in the Earth-Sun system. Saying Gregorian calendar should not be any more offensive than saying, for example, Celsius temperature scale, Dewey decimal system or Richter scale, all of which are named for ordinary human beings associated closely with them. Thus, we might say A.H. for a date strictly related to Islam and A.D. for a date strictly relate to Christianity but simply G. or A.G. for a date on the Gregorian calendar that is not used almost universally for everyday timekeeping. By the way today's Gregorian date is 2 January 2004, which corresponds to the same date on the Christian liturgical (A.D.) calendar and to the Hijri date 20 Dhul Qi'dah 1424. -- Peace to all who seek God's face. Abdelkarim Benoit Evans > A more logical name for the A.D. (or C.E.) calendar is "Gregorian" > since Pope Gregory sponsored the calendar reform that replace the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > for > everyday timekeeping. Except that Mr. Gregory had nothing to do with determining the number of the year. > > A more logical name for the A.D. (or C.E.) calendar is "Gregorian" > > since Pope Gregory sponsored the calendar reform that replace the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Except that Mr. Gregory had nothing to do with determining the number > of the year. I agree, that was the weak point of poster I quoted. > > > > In sci.astro message <c25693ae-2696-4e7c-a878-392c0d2d0...@d27g2000yqf.g > > > > ooglegroups.com>, Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:18:50, Peter T. Daniels [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > invented its own solar era starting with the tradional birthyear of > Muhammad and called it "mi:la:di:"). usually al-mi:la:d refers to the or in arabic in the feminine mi:la:diyya(t), qualifying sana(t) "year" (fem.). in Libya in the Christian era is now called 'ifranjiyy / 'ifranjiyya(t) lit. "Frankish", meaning "Western European" but rather obsolete in formal discourse, except when discussing the Crusades etc. > birthday of Jesus (recognized as a very important prophet) while other > synonyms are used for that of Muhammad. I had assumed that "Year of > Our Lord" would be objectionable to muslims, as they do not recognize > as divine. but a western convert from Christianity argued that the > Latin word used was not objectionable for reasons of detail that I > forgot. In sci.astro message <e764802a-d66a-4bf0-a034-55c8cf97f107@z4g2000yqa.go oglegroups.com>, Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:16:33, Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> posted: >> In sci.astro message <c25693ae-2696-4e7c-a878-392c0d2d0b8b@d27g2000yqf.g >> ooglegroups.com>, Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:18:50, Peter T. Daniels [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Peter clearly thinks we all need to write CE now and there's something >wrong with AD. It is OK to use CE to stand for Christian Era, as long as the readers will know that. Consistent heathens should have a term other than 'Gregorian' to describe the current calendar; Gregory was after all a Papal name, not his baptismal one. 'Ugoic' and 'Buoncompagnian' sound far less elegant. "ISO 8601" would be accurate; but no true US red-neck would use it. Signature(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc. [...] > It is OK to use CE to stand for Christian Era, as long as > the readers will know that. Which is unlikely, since those who know it at all will likely know that it stands for 'Common Era'. Brian > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Brian Why would they? I see "CE" frequently on the Net - on Usenet and on the Web. I know it is a twee version of "AD" and "Christian Era" is the most obvious interpretation once I've given up on "Calendar E?". SignatureRob Bannister > > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Web. I know it is a twee version of "AD" and "Christian Era" is the most > obvious interpretation once I've given up on "Calendar E?". In First Grade, when Sister Dorothea was teaching us about B.C. and A.D., I ventured the guess that it stood for "After Death." She said, "That's very, very close." And introduced us to the concept of "Latin." "C.E." may not have been invented yet in 1957, or if it had been, it hadn't yet gained currency. >> > [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> Web. I know it is a twee version of "AD" and "Christian Era" is the most >> obvious interpretation once I've given up on "Calendar E?". The Wikipedia page on it implies that both "Christian era" and "common era" go back at least to the seventeenth century, the latter originally being "vulgar era" and distinguishing the dating system from regnal dates (e.g., "in the fourth year of the reign of ...") > In First Grade, when Sister Dorothea was teaching us about B.C. and > A.D., I ventured the guess that it stood for "After Death." She said, > "That's very, very close." Hey, if Jesus could be born four years before himself, why couldn't he die thirty years after his death? > And introduced us to the concept of "Latin." > > "C.E." may not have been invented yet in 1957, or if it had been, it > hadn't yet gained currency. The subtitle of Morris Raphall's 1856 _Post-Biblical History of the Jews: From the Close of the Old Testament, About the Year 420 B.C.E. till the Destruction of the Second Temple, in the Year 70 C.E._ would seem to imply that it had been invented. Raphall doesn't bother to explain the notation, so it was presumably already current, at least among Jewish historians. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Well, if you can't believe what you 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |read in a comic book, what can you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |believe?! | Bullwinkle J. Moose kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> "C.E." may not have been invented yet in 1957, or if it had been, it >> hadn't yet gained currency. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to explain the notation, so it was presumably already current, at > least among Jewish historians. Heck, Wikipedia says: The English phrase "common Era" appears at least as early as 1708,[34] and in a 1715 book on astronomy is used interchangeably with "Christian Era" and "Vulgar Era".[35] (I guess if Peter replies at all, he's going to argue that the three citations we've found do *not* constitute "gaining currency", since he knows he's infallible.) [34] http://books.google.com/books?id=D_wvAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA2-PA515&dq=%22common+era%22&l r=lang_en&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=800&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1740& as_brr=0&cd=2#v=onepage&q=%22common%20era%22&f=false http://tinyurl.com/yctz42h [35] http://books.google.com/books?id=ze8ehe65hwcC&pg=RA2-PA252&dq=%22Common+Era%22+% 22before+chrift%22++chriftian+common+era http://tinyurl.com/ybu79pw SignatureUsenet is a cesspool, a dung heap. [Patrick A. Townson] >> "C.E." may not have been invented yet in 1957, or if it had been, it >> hadn't yet gained currency. > > (I guess if Peter replies at all, he's going to argue that the three > citations we've found do *not* constitute "gaining currency", since he > knows he's infallible.) Any halfway-decent practitioner of verbal tap-dancing will tell you that by far the better way to try to squirm out of admitting this particular error is to re-define "gaining currency" as "obtaining financial backing", and to wonder at length why people didn't understand that that was the intended meaning all along. A well-practiced verbal tap-dancer, who has been tap-dancing out of dunderheaded mistakes for years, will have advanced strategems ready to hand, such arguing that the subjunctive clearly implied that another universe with a wholly different history was being discussed, and only a fool wouldn't have seen that. Simply refuting, or even addressing, the easy-to-research facts is the mark of a rank beginner in the discipline. >>>> [...] >>>>> It is OK to use CE to stand for Christian Era, as long as [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > to explain the notation, so it was presumably already current, at > least among Jewish historians. Why would Jewish historians use a dating system based on the supposed date of Jesus' death? Since it's you, I won't ask whether you are sure that the edition you're looking at hasn't been reprinted and tampered with by a later publisher, but it is surprising. SignatureRob Bannister >>> "C.E." may not have been invented yet in 1957, or if it had been, >>> it hadn't yet gained currency. >> The subtitle of Morris Raphall's 1856 >> _Post-Biblical History of the Jews: From the Close of the Old >> Testament, About the Year 420 B.C.E. till the Destruction of the >> Second Temple, in the Year 70 C.E._ >> would seem to imply that it had been invented. Raphall doesn't >> bother to explain the notation, so it was presumably already [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that the edition you're looking at hasn't been reprinted and tampered > with by a later publisher, but it is surprising. It's not surprising at all to me. It was the dating system used by the country they lived in and the one that would be familiar to most of their audience. The same reason the Israeli newspaper _Haaretz_ gives today's date on their website as "12.3.2010"[1]. I truly is the "common era", the "vulgaris aerae". Earlier, they may have used "AUC" without believing (or caring about) the ostensible date of the founding of Rome. Whatever the origins of the system, I don't think I know anybody, however religious, (and can't think of anybody) who doesn't think of this year primarily as "2010". For me, it's a historical curiosity that happens to have its origins in a religion, like cities named "San Francisco" or "Santa Fe" or days of the week named "Thursday" and "Friday". [1] On the Hebrew web site. On the English web site, interestingly, it's "Fri., March 12, 2010 Adar 26, 5770" SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The purpose of writing is to inflate 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and inhibit clarity. With a little |practice, writing can be an kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog! (650)857-7572 | Calvin http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Why would Jewish historians use a dating system based on the supposed >> date of Jesus' death? Since it's you, I won't ask whether you are sure [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > without believing (or caring about) the ostensible date of the > founding of Rome. > [1] On the Hebrew web site. On the English web site, interestingly, > it's "Fri., March 12, 2010 Adar 26, 5770" They assume the people who read Hebrew can all do the conversion in their heads, whereas many of the English-readers need help with it. ;-) SignatureI don't know what they have to say It makes no difference anyway; Whatever it is, I'm against it! [Prof. Wagstaff] Adam Funk filted: >> the Israeli newspaper _Haaretz_ >> gives today's date on their website as "12.3.2010"[1]. I truly is the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >They assume the people who read Hebrew can all do the conversion in >their heads, whereas many of the English-readers need help with it. Does one date but not the other change at sunset?...r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > Adam Funk filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Does one date but not the other change at sunset?...r Apparently not! I checked it three times today: At 10:20 GMT: Mon., March 15, 2010 Adar 29, 5770 Israel Time: 12:20 (EST+7) At 17:18 GMT: Mon., March 15, 2010 Adar 29, 5770 Israel Time: 19:18 (EST+7) Just now: Mon., March 15, 2010 Adar 29, 5770 Israel Time: 22:33 (EST+7) SignatureOh, I do most of my quality thinking on the old sandbox. [Bucky Katt] >>> [...] >>>> It is OK to use CE to stand for Christian Era, as long as [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "C.E." may not have been invented yet in 1957, or if it had been, it > hadn't yet gained currency. I like "After Death", but I suspect that most English speakers have forgotten or never knew what the letters stand for. SignatureRob Bannister >> It is OK to use CE to stand for Christian Era, as long as the readers >> will know that. >> > Which is unlikely, since those who know it at all will likely know > that it stands for 'Common Era'. Here's one for the mathematicians and astronomers: Mark Elvin (professor of Chinese history at ANU) translates "gongyuan" (公元) as "common origin" rather than "common era". This rather implies the idea of an origin, i.e. a year zero, in the BCE/CE coördinate system. >>> It is OK to use CE to stand for Christian Era, as long as the readers >>> will know that. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > origin" rather than "common era". This rather implies the idea of an > origin, i.e. a year zero, in the BCE/CE coördinate system. A lot of conflations here. First of all, <gong1yuan2> 公元 has long been the standard translation[1] for "AD" long before "BCE/CE" came on the scene. Thus one cannot say that the choice of <gong1yuan2> 公元 was influenced by "BCE/CE". [1] At least in the PRC. In Taiwan <xi1yuan2> 西元 (<xi1> = "West") is still rather common. There are also <ji4yuan2> 紀元 (<ji4> = "Era") or 耶元 <ye1yuan2> (<ye1> is short for 耶穌 <ye1su1>, "Jesus"). Second, while 元 <yuan2> is perhaps best translated as "origin", it can also mean "the first" or "one". In naming years, 元年 <yuan2nian2> means "Year One". For example, 公元元年 <gong1yuan2 yuan2nian2> would Year 1 AD/CE. No concept of year zero is implied by the term. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr On Mar 10, 6:03 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In sci.astro message <e764802a-d66a-4bf0-a034-55c8cf97f...@z4g2000yqa.go > oglegroups.com>, Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:16:33, Andrew Usher [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It is OK to use CE to stand for Christian Era, as long as the readers > will know that. No reader will "know" that, because it doesn't. It stands for "Common Era," and it was introduced so as not to date events in the non- Christian world according to a "Lord" the non-Christian world does not recognize. > Consistent heathens should have a term other than 'Gregorian' to > describe the current calendar; Gregory was after all a Papal name, not > his baptismal one. 'Ugoic' and 'Buoncompagnian' sound far less elegant. > "ISO 8601" would be accurate; but no true US red-neck would use it. > In sci.astro message <e764802a-d66a-4bf0-a034-55c8cf97f107@z4g2000yqa.go > oglegroups.com>, Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:16:33, Andrew Usher [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > his baptismal one. 'Ugoic' and 'Buoncompagnian' sound far less elegant. > "ISO 8601" would be accurate; but no true US red-neck would use it. Why would heathens, pagans or atheists object to a name change? People change their names for all sorts of weird reasons and the changes are usually accepted. Some people are remembered by their original name, some by their changed name, some by their nom de plume and some by both or even all their names. There is no need to attack heathens for this. SignatureRob Bannister > > In sci.astro message <e764802a-d66a-4bf0-a034-55c8cf97f...@z4g2000yqa.go > > oglegroups.com>, Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:16:33, Andrew Usher [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > some by their changed name, some by their nom de plume and some by both > or even all their names. There is no need to attack heathens for this. I recently read in a book on the construction of St. Peter's in Rome that during that stretch there was a pope who didn't take a different name, and all sorts of catastrophes befell him in his short reign -- and no one has tried flouting that tradition since. >> In sci.astro message <e764802a-d66a-4bf0-a034-55c8cf97f107@z4g2000yqa.go >> oglegroups.com>, Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:16:33, Andrew Usher [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >some by their changed name, some by their nom de plume and some by both >or even all their names. There is no need to attack heathens for this. Aesthetics. Ugoic sounds as if only palaeontologists could have invented it; and dew would know how to pronounce Buoncompagnian. Gregorian is understood wherever it needs to be, excepting perhaps the deepest boonies. Thunderbox appears not to quote paragraph breaks; eschew it. Signature(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc. > >Peter clearly thinks we all need to write CE now and there's something > >wrong with AD. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > his baptismal one. 'Ugoic' and 'Buoncompagnian' sound far less elegant. > "ISO 8601" would be accurate; but no true US red-neck would use it. Well I'm a 'heathen' and have no problem with 'Gregorian' or 'AD'. In fact, I think any attempt to use something else is just silly. Andrew Usher > Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> posted: >>> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> posted: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > elegant. "ISO 8601" would be accurate; but no true US red-neck > would use it. Arguably, it would have been the Pope's system, not the man's, unless Ugo is remembered as having worked it out himself in his spare time. On Mar 9, 6:47 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In sci.astro message <c25693ae-2696-4e7c-a878-392c0d2d0...@d27g2000yqf.g > ooglegroups.com>, Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:18:50, Peter T. Daniels [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > were invented. AD, AH, AM can only mean Christian, Muslim, Jewish (or a > rarity). A century ago, dates on cornerstones routinely had "A.D." in them, and it was just as redundant then. >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> posted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > A century ago, dates on cornerstones routinely had "A.D." in them, and > it was just as redundant then. The Wikipedia page on "Anno Mundi" has a picture of a cornerstone (from 1916 AD) with an "AL" date on it, for "Anno Lucis", which reckons the world from 4000 BC, apparently used by Freemasons. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There are two types of people - 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |those who are one of the two types Palo Alto, CA 94304 |of people, and those who are not. | Leigh Blue Caldwell kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> posted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > (from 1916 AD) with an "AL" date on it, for "Anno Lucis", which > reckons the world from 4000 BC, apparently used by Freemasons. On an English usage point, the usual BrE expression is "foundation stone". I see the wikipedia article "cornerstone" uses the two interchangeably. The metaphorical meaning is used though, suggesting that we used to use them both. Thinking about the ones I've seen about, very few were on the corner (unlike many of the examples shown in Wikipedia) so maybe a change in building habits has lead to a change in word usage. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >The Wikipedia page on "Anno Mundi" has a picture of a cornerstone >(from 1916 AD) with an "AL" date on it, for "Anno Lucis", which >reckons the world from 4000 BC, apparently used by Freemasons. So, according to Google, it is said. The cornerstone says "... "SEPT 14 1916 - A.L. 5916" and a number of pages, including that Wiki one, agree that A.L. = A.D. + 4000. However, the A.D. system is a count from (fictitious) A.D. 0 = zero, and that is Year (+-) 0 by Astronomer's Notation. Four thousand years earlier was Astronomer's -4000, which was B.C. 4001. There seems to be a discrepancy; you don't mean 4001 BC, but maybe you ought to. <http://www.freemasonry.london.museum/faqs.htm>, probably reliable, gives +4000, does not mention B.C. 4000, and indicates that the 4000 was an approximation to representing Ussher's B.C. 4004. Signature(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc. On Mar 10, 6:29 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In sci.astro message <1vfsxkrx....@hpl.hp.com>, Wed, 10 Mar 2010 > 07:24:02, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> posted: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that is Year (+-) 0 by Astronomer's Notation. Four thousand years > earlier was Astronomer's -4000, which was B.C. 4001. No, there is no "A.D. 0" ("(fictitious)" or otherwise). > There seems to be a discrepancy; you don't mean 4001 BC, but maybe you > ought to. > > <http://www.freemasonry.london.museum/faqs.htm>, probably reliable, > gives +4000, does not mention B.C. 4000, and indicates that the 4000 was > an approximation to representing Ussher's B.C. 4004. >On Mar 10, 6:29 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> >wrote: >> However, the A.D. system is a count from (fictitious) A.D. 0 = zero, and >> that is Year (+-) 0 by Astronomer's Notation. Four thousand years >> earlier was Astronomer's -4000, which was B.C. 4001. > >No, there is no "A.D. 0" ("(fictitious)" or otherwise). I find that a curious sentence. Are you saying that sometimes fictitious things actually exist? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:01:30 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I find that a curious sentence. Are you saying that sometimes > fictitious things actually exist? You'll have to ask J R Stockton what it meant by "(fictitious)." But yes, are you unfamiliar with the genre "historical fiction"? In the last few months I read two recent novels about Frank Lloyd Wright's complicated love life. Since little is known about the woman for whom he left his first wife and about his second wife, they contain much speculation and reconstruction about real people. >>>> The Wikipedia page on "Anno Mundi" has a picture of a cornerstone >>>> (from 1916 AD) with an "AL" date on it, for "Anno Lucis", which [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I find that a curious sentence. Are you saying that sometimes > fictitious things actually exist? What xe's really saying is that xe didn't in fact comprehend M. Stockton's point about the off-by-one error. (-: The off-by-one error isn't as significant as it may seem, by the way. Again, Usenet hasn't really made it past Notes and Queries of 1864, where you'll find people having this same "What is A.L.?" discussion, and where you'll find it pointed out that there's no real authority in the matter, and that some masons add 4000 to Gregorian year numbers whilst others add 4004, because there's confusion as to whether the oft-dicsussed 4 year error in Gregorian numbering should be corrected for or not. Then there's the further confusion inspired by Mackey's Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry, which has A.L. years sometimes starting on January the1st and sometimes starting on March the 1st. And the situation hasn't really become any clearer in the century and a half since. So the off-by-one error is to a large extent lost beneath noise of greater amplitude. >>The Wikipedia page on "Anno Mundi" has a picture of a cornerstone >>(from 1916 AD) with an "AL" date on it, for "Anno Lucis", which [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >However, the A.D. system is a count from (fictitious) A.D. 0 = zero, and >that is Year (+-) 0 by Astronomer's Notation. Perhaps, but the A.D. years are ordinal numbers and don't require a Year Zero. they means something like, "the 1950th year of our Lord." Astronomers need numbers in a continuum so they established a Year Zero. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:29:55 +0000, Dr J R Stockton > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Astronomers need numbers in a continuum so they established a > Year Zero. It doesn't really make sense to me to have a year zero. Zero is a _point_ on a number line, not an interval of unit size; logically it should be the point in between B.C. and A.D. I think the ancients had it right in the first place. > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:29:55 +0000, Dr J R Stockton > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > should be the point in between B.C. and A.D. I think the ancients had > it right in the first place. There is a year zero even if it is almost impossible to designate where and when it began yet the technical points drawn from ancient astronomy are so definite,so stable and so clear that I marvel at how contemporaries tend to muddy the picture rather than promote the fairly simple structures which link AM/PM with B.C/A.D . I am certain that many expect hugely mathematical descriptions behind the 24 hour day and the calendar system but nothing can be further from the truth,there is a brief line of reasoning which connects the average 24 hour day to the 365/366 day calendar system which requires putting the references for the daily and annual cycles in order but even this requires something even more fundamental - a clear understanding what a calendar does and where it comes from. There is a year 'zero' where it all went wrong,specifically through John Flamsteed,who did something no other astronomer since antiquity had done thereby obscuring the nuts and bolts of the equable day/ calendar system by referencing the daily cycle to the circumpolar motion of the constellations around Polaris,specifically this statement - "... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical... " Flamsteed to Moore ,1676 Flamsteed is referring to this apparent motion - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI Of course,explaining what went wrong first may not be the proper way to go about things however it has the advantage of dealing with the matter on a technical level and few,at least from my experience, have the desire to investigate further even though it is an intellectually satisfying exercise.So,anyone wish to state clearly what a calendar does and why it was adopted in antiquity,a system so precise and stable that it required a 10 day correction,through the efforts of the Christian Church in order to reset the calendar back to the raw annual cycle from which it emerged ?.It may help that I have not seen a correct answer to what a calendar does and especially not from doctorates who will attempt to obfuscate and bury the reader in a blizzard of technical issues while they themselves do not comprehend the system itself. This is a worthwhile endeavor,something lovely to do in an era where there is too much speculative agendas based on opinions and none of the great interpretative qualities which our ancestors had,we know this insofar as we still use their timekeeping system without really grasping how it came about and how well it works hence this is not a taunt but an offer to appreciate the nuts and bolts behind the timekeeping averages without swamping the reader with technical issues. >>>> Yes there was. 0 CE preceeded 1 CE. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > Did Dionysius use any initials? None to abbreviate "anno XYZ", at any rate, which is why I carefully didn't ask what initials he used, but what the initials were of the name that he used. (-: > Probably no abbreviations were used until much later, but 'AD' is the > only one I've ever seen in inscriptions. "Anno Domini" itself didn't appear until much later. Not only (as stated in another message) was Dionysius Exiguus' system not actually the same as the modern system, but the name of the modern system in actual use appeared centuries after him too. One of the earliest recorded uses of "Anno Domini" in Britain was written in the reign of Henry III ("Actum London in Domo Militiae Templi xi. Kal. Octob. Anno Domini millesimo ducentesimo decimo nono"). Widespread use in Papal documents dates to the 11th century, and Pope Nicholas II, although it occurs prior to that. Abbreviation to "A.D." indeed only came about in the 16th century. >>>> But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What were the initials of the name of the system that Dionysius Exiguus > did invent?) DE? >>>>> But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > DE? No. "AAID", for "anno ab Incarnatione Domini". Here's another interesting note: Whilst Dionysius measured from Christ's conception (taking it to be March the 25th), and Venerable Bede (initially, before later switching to September) measured from Christ's birth (taken to be exactly nine months later), the modern A.D. system measures from Christ's circumcision (January the 1st, A.D. 1), and accords with Orthodox Judaism in that respect. On Mar 10, 9:57 am, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: > >>>>> But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > measures from Christ's circumcision (January the 1st, A.D. 1), and > accords with Orthodox Judaism in that respect. (a) What does Orthodox Judaism care about Christ's circumcision, and (b) It doesn't do anything of the sort. The year number changes on Rosh Hashanah. >> Indeed, indexing is not the same thing as counting. If I were creating >> a non-computer _indexing_ system, I would start from 0 as well. > >What would you be indexing? Books, for instance, don't have a p. 0. That comes down to the question of whether the cardinal numbers include zero. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> Indeed, indexing is not the same thing as counting. If I were >>> creating a non-computer _indexing_ system, I would start from 0 as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That comes down to the question of whether the cardinal numbers > include zero. If they don't, how do you express the cardinality of the empty set? SignatureEvan 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/ >>>> Indeed, indexing is not the same thing as counting. If I were >>>> creating a non-computer _indexing_ system, I would start from 0 as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >If they don't, how do you express the cardinality of the empty set? That's been a mathematical know for some time, and comes down to how you define a cardinal number (which may not be quite the same as the contemporary concept of cardinality post Cantor.) I amke no claim to understand it all. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> Indeed, indexing is not the same thing as counting. If I were >>>> creating a non-computer _indexing_ system, I would start from 0 as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >If they don't, how do you express the cardinality of the empty set? By calling it the null set, perhaps. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:15:35 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That comes down to the question of whether the cardinal numbers > include zero. No, it doesn't; books don't have a p. 0. >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:15:35 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > No, it doesn't; books don't have a p. 0. Lots of books are printed without showing the page numbers on the first page of each chapter, but those unprinted numbers are still in the sequence. So page 0 is just the copyright page or whatever else is facing page 1. SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? >>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:15:35 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the sequence. So page 0 is just the copyright page or whatever else > is facing page 1. If there's a page 0 there must also be a page -1. SignatureJames >> Lots of books are printed without showing the page numbers on the >> first page of each chapter, but those unprinted numbers are still in >> the sequence. So page 0 is just the copyright page or whatever else >> is facing page 1. > > If there's a page 0 there must also be a page -1. That could be title page (if the title page's verso is 0). I was just looking at a book that a dedication page (with a blank verso, page 0) between the title/copyright pages and page 1: the title page there would be -3. The distinction is neatly preserved that RH and LH pages have odd and even numbers, respectively. SignatureI heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt] > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:15:35 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the sequence. So page 0 is just the copyright page or whatever else > is facing page 1. No, the page before p. 1 is the last roman-numbered page of the front matter (always an even number, of course). If a book doesn't have roman-numbered front matter, so that the first visible page number is 7 or greater, if you count the unnumbered pages back, you'll find that the recto of the first leaf after the endpaper (which it has if it's a hardcover) is p. 1. > So page 0 is just the copyright page or whatever else is facing page 1. No. The copyright page is by convention page iv, the verso of page iii, the title page. Pages i and ii are by the same convention the bastard title and an ad card/series title/blank, respectively. In modern paperback books, there is usually no leaf preceding page i. In hardback books, there is a leaf, made from a flyleaf glued to an endpaper, and which thus technically only one side of which is part of the text block of the book. On Mar 5, 10:37 am, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: > > So page 0 is just the copyright page or whatever else is facing page 1. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > which thus technically only one side of which is part of the text block > of the book. Don't butt into discussions you haven't been following. The point is not the numbering of the copyright page. The point is that someone falsely claimed that a book can have a page 0. >>> So page 0 is just the copyright page or whatever else is facing page 1. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > The point is not the numbering of the copyright page. On the contrary, that's exactly the point. Read what M. Funk wrote again. There's a secondary point about distinct numbering sequences to be had, too, from a careful and thoughtful reading. On Mar 7, 9:00 pm, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: > >>> So page 0 is just the copyright page or whatever else is facing page 1. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > again. There's a secondary point about distinct numbering sequences to > be had, too, from a careful and thoughtful reading. A. Funk made an irrelevant comment. >On Mar 7, 9:00 pm, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- >newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >A. Funk made an irrelevant comment. In alt.usage.english??? Good grief, what is the world coming to? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Hatunen (in sci.lang): >>> Indeed, indexing is not the same thing as counting. If I were creating >>> a non-computer _indexing_ system, I would start from 0 as well. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That comes down to the question of whether the cardinal numbers > include zero. Indexing is about _ordinal_ numbers. Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 83: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwbzpU9SRN4> My favourite # 47: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKDAbp9m5yw> >>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >>>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Indeed, indexing is not the same thing as counting. If I were creating > a non-computer _indexing_ system, I would start from 0 as well. So what would you put in the zeroeth slot? /BAH > jmfbahciv wrote (23-02-2010 12:28): >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 'first', the 'first' element's position is the array's ('first') plus 0. > First plus 0 = first! How do you find the second if the data is stored from the bottom up; how do you find the second if the data is stored from the top down. How do you find the nth? Subtract one from your index register? /BAH > Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way > that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. Oh, absolutely. Why, I see people in the stores every day, counting out their money or the number of items they're going to purchase, and saying to themselves "Zero, one, two..." ;-) Bob M. >> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ;-) Especially when the clerk counts change. I'm sure Usher wouldn't object when he gets a dollar short. /BAH >>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Especially when the clerk counts change. I'm sure Usher wouldn't > object when he gets a dollar short. Would he perhaps see some value in minting zero cent coins? pjk On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:47:16 +1300, PaulJK <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in <news:hm7u3v$etu$1@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >>>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. >>> Oh, absolutely. Why, I see people in the stores every day, >>> counting out their money or the number of items they're >>> going to purchase, and saying to themselves "Zero, one, two..." >>> ;-) >> Especially when the clerk counts change. I'm sure Usher wouldn't >> object when he gets a dollar short. > Would he perhaps see some value in minting zero cent coins? Probably: after all, its zero sense. Brian Brian wrote on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:25:03 -0500: >>>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the >>>>> Right Way that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the >>>>> other way. >>>> Oh, absolutely. Why, I see people in the stores every day, >>>> counting out their money or the number of items they're >>>> going to purchase, and saying to themselves "Zero, one, >>>> two..." >>>> ;-) >>> Especially when the clerk counts change. I'm sure Usher >>> wouldn't object when he gets a dollar short. >> Would he perhaps see some value in minting zero cent coins? > Probably: after all, its zero sense. I am trying to remember when Fortran introduced arrays with arbitrary indexing, that is, starting at numbers other than 1. I have not programmed in Fortran in years and I do remember the change but not when it happened. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not James Silverton filted: >I am trying to remember when Fortran introduced arrays with arbitrary >indexing, that is, starting at numbers other than 1. I have not >programmed in Fortran in years and I do remember the change but not when >it happened. Somewhere buried in storage I have a book on Fortran that compares seventy or eighty implementations of the language (each time a feature is introduced, there's a table showing whether it exists in that flavor, and exactly what the restrictions are)...the table on subscripting gives such varieties as: positive integer constant scalar integer variable (n) integer variable plus or minus integer constant (n+i, n-i) integer multiple of variable plus or minus constant (i*n+j, i*n-j) arbitrary integer expressions arbitrary expressions of any type so long as they're convertible to integer Most Fortrans allowed only the first four of these; the last two were considered wild-eyed and radical...you couldn't run backwards through an array with a loop incrementing KOUNT from 1 to 10, subscripting the array with 11-KOUNT; things had to be in exactly one of the approved forms...and you certainly couldn't combine multiple variables in one, or use an element of one array as an index in another like VALUES(ISIZE(ITABLE(K))).... *Defining* arrays was even more strict...either a constant or, if the array was a subroutine parameter, a constant that was *also* a parameter.... A similar table gave the same levels of complexity for the upper and lower bounds of a DO statement, and for the increment....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle R wrote on 26 Feb 2010 08:26:47 -0800: > James Silverton filted: >> >> I am trying to remember when Fortran introduced arrays with >> arbitrary indexing, that is, starting at numbers other than >> 1. I have not programmed in Fortran in years and I do >> remember the change but not when it happened. > Somewhere buried in storage I have a book on Fortran that > compares seventy or eighty implementations of the language > (each time a feature is introduced, there's a table showing > whether it exists in that flavor, and exactly what the > restrictions are)...the table on subscripting gives such > varieties as: > positive integer constant > scalar integer variable (n) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > arbitrary expressions of any type so long as they're > convertible to integer > Most Fortrans allowed only the first four of these; the last > two were considered wild-eyed and radical...you couldn't run [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of one array as an index in another like > VALUES(ISIZE(ITABLE(K))).... > *Defining* arrays was even more strict...either a constant or, > if the array was a subroutine parameter, a constant that was > *also* a parameter.... > A similar table gave the same levels of complexity for the > upper and lower bounds of a DO statement, and for the > increment....r I think I have found the answer. It was Fortran77 according to: http://orion.math.iastate.edu/burkardt/papers/fortran_arrays.html SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Brian wrote on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:25:03 -0500: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > programmed in Fortran in years and I do remember the change but not when > it happened. You always could "start" at numbers other than one. Or are you talking about the actual memory assigned to the array? /BAH jmfbahciv wrote on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:40:48 -0500: >> Brian wrote on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:25:03 -0500: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You always could "start" at numbers other than one. Or are > you talking about the actual memory assigned to the array? Yes, there were ways of doing that but when you defined an array with, say, DIMENSION A(100) The array elements were A(1) to A(100). I think it was Fortran77 where, say, REAL (0:99) :: A became a valid declaration. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > jmfbahciv wrote on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:40:48 -0500: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > became a valid declaration. Thanks. I swear I read the 77 ANSI proposal but I don't remember this stuff. That one had to cause bugs. /BAH >>> You always could "start" at numbers other than one. Or are >>> you talking about the actual memory assigned to the array? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Thanks. I swear I read the 77 ANSI proposal but I don't > remember this stuff. That one had to cause bugs. I've never used Fortran 77, but I don't see how that would cause bugs. If the array bounds have to be declared, the compiler can insert checks for subscripts being out of bounds, and in fact that is what is done in most of the modern programming languages I know something about. The reason you get so many "array overrun" errors in C - it seems to be the means most used by hackers to break system security - is not the confusing "count from zero" convention, but the fact that the language doesn't really have the concept of "array". Instead, it has a kludge that lets you write pointer arithmetic in a way that looks like array subscripting notation. As a result, the language specification more or less explicitly prohibits compilers from inserting checks for subscript errors. Admittedly the common "off by one" errors are often caused by zero-based subscripting. With most programming languages, though, such an error will make itself evident the first time you run the program, when you run off the end of the array; and the exception information will quickly lead you to the cause of the crash. It's safe to declare subscript ranges in any way that is natural to the application, as long as the generated code includes range checks. The main thing that makes C so unsuitable for real-world applications is the paucity of run-time checks. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > Admittedly the common "off by one" errors are often caused by > zero-based subscripting. With most programming languages, though, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > checks. The main thing that makes C so unsuitable for real-world > applications is the paucity of run-time checks. The existence of which, of course, along with the concommitant overhead, being one of the main reasons that other languages were considered unsuitable for real-world applications. Fast, safe, and easy to write a compiler for. Pick two. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you're ready to break a rule, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you _know_ that you're ready; you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |don't need anyone else to tell |you. (If you're not that certain, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |then you're _not_ ready.) (650)857-7572 | Tom Phoenix http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Admittedly the common "off by one" errors are often caused by >> zero-based subscripting. With most programming languages, though, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Fast, safe, and easy to write a compiler for. Pick two. I take your point, but the world has changed since such decisions were made. The computer I'm now using has a processor that's about 100 times as fast as the one in the first PC I ever had. I'm doing a job at present that requires a lot of real-time graphics processing, and it turns out that we have a lot of spare processor time. Besides, it's been true for a number of years now that software written in high-level languages often runs faster (up to about a 5% improvement) than the same software written in C. That's because modern compilers do a lot of code optimisation, but with a low-level language a lot of optimisation possibilities aren't applicable. As for range checks: some processors now in use do a range check in a single machine language instruction. Your "easy to write a compiler for" is more to the point. With the kinds of processor that are typically used for embedded applications, compilers are available for exactly one language, so the programmer has no choice. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> Admittedly the common "off by one" errors are often caused by >>> zero-based subscripting. With most programming languages, though, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I take your point, but the world has changed since such decisions > were made. Yeah, but a lot of the code bases in use go back that far, and rewriting from scratch is a difficult proposition. The slide from C to C++ is relatively easy and allows you to encapsulate safety in library classes, but changing the language more radically is a whole 'nother ball of wax. > The computer I'm now using has a processor that's about 100 times as > fast as the one in the first PC I ever had. Either you're a lot younger than I thought, or it's *way* more than 100. I believe that the last time I looked at it, processor speed (in terms of work that can be performed) was essentially on a Moore's Law curve, which gives you a factor of ten every five years. (It's not just cycle time; it's how much you can get done in a cycle due to the instruction set, pipelining, multiple cores, etc.) > I'm doing a job at present that requires a lot of real-time graphics > processing, and it turns out that we have a lot of spare processor > time. And the genetic programming runs I was doing last year (in a system written in C++) had the processor pegged (on 4 cores each for 16 machines) for hours. There's a spectrum. I do most of my programming in Java these days, but every time I look at rewriting that system, I throw up my hands. There's just no way it can match the performance (largely through templates and inlining) or maintainability. (Java's designers made some silly (but understandable) choices when they added parameterized types. (Some good ones, too, don't get me wrong.)) > Besides, it's been true for a number of years now that software > written in high-level languages often runs faster (up to about a 5% > improvement) than the same software written in C. That's because > modern compilers do a lot of code optimisation, but with a low-level > language a lot of optimisation possibilities aren't applicable. When I was in school, C was considered an HLL, and the same point was made: since control flow is explicit, you can do a lot more optimization. Which optimizations did you have in mind that don't apply to C++? > As for range checks: some processors now in use do a range check in > a single machine language instruction. The same instruction as the fetch or set? That would probably be enough. Which processors do that? (I'm woefully behind on modern processor architectures.) > Your "easy to write a compiler for" is more to the point. With the > kinds of processor that are typically used for embedded > applications, compilers are available for exactly one language, so > the programmer has no choice. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |On a scale of one to ten... 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it sucked. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > Besides, it's been true for a number of years now that software > > written in high-level languages often runs faster (up to about a 5% [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > optimization. Which optimizations did you have in mind that don't > apply to C++? This is going a long way away from sci.lang, but would you be so kind as to indicate what optimizations you have in mind that don't apply to C (never mind C++). Isn't optimization carried out using intermediate languages more primitive than C? > > Your "easy to write a compiler for" is more to the point. With the > > kinds of processor that are typically used for embedded > > applications, compilers are available for exactly one language, so > > the programmer has no choice. Wouldn't that imply that writing a better compiler was an interesting business opportunity? Writing a dumb compiler is easy (and tedious). All the skill is in the optimization. > The computer I'm now using has a processor that's about 100 times > as fast as the one in the first PC I ever had. My first computer had a 1MHz processor. My current machine has a 4 core processor running at 2Ghz. 8 *thousand* times faster. That first machine could hold 140K on a floppy disk and had 48K of RAM. Current machine has 7TB of disk space and 6GB of RAM. Signature<jshock221> a freudian slip is when you say one thing but you're really thinking about a mother. <Spadgeroonie> no, a freudian slip is sexy underwear your mother wears >> The computer I'm now using has a processor that's about 100 times >> as fast as the one in the first PC I ever had. > > My first computer had a 1MHz processor. My current machine has a 4 core > processor running at 2Ghz. 8 *thousand* times faster. Sorry, my calculation error. I was better at working out orders of magnitude back in the slide rule days. Of course, software bloat has mucked around with my intuition. Everything seems to run a bit more slowly than it did on the 1 MHz processor. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> The computer I'm now using has a processor that's about 100 times >> as fast as the one in the first PC I ever had. > > My first computer had a 1MHz processor. My current machine has a 4 > core processor As does mine, but it uses hyper-threading and presents itself as 8 processors. > running at 2Ghz. 8 *thousand* times faster. If it was a 6502, it took between 2 and 6 cycles (depending on addressing mode) to perform a single 8-bit add instruction. Anything more complicated took a routine. My text (Scanlon's _6502 Software Design_), gives a 21-instruction subroutine (including a loop) for multiplying two 16-bit integers. It takes, let's see, 642 cycles plus 18 for every 1 bit in the second operand. Not counting the overhead of moving the operands to page-zero memory, calling the subroutine, and moving the result out. I shudder to think how long a single 64-bit IEEE floating-point multiply would take. > That first machine could hold 140K on a floppy disk and had 48K of > RAM. Oh, you got a *big* one. > Current machine has 7TB of disk space and 6GB of RAM. That's a big disk for today, though, you have to admit. I don't think I've seen more than about 1TB actually on a machine. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |English is about as pure as a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |cribhouse whore. We don't just Palo Alto, CA 94304 |borrow words; on occasion, English |has pursued other languages down kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |alleyways to beat them unconscious (650)857-7572 |and rifle their pockets for new |vocabulary. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | --James D. Nicoll >> Current machine has 7TB of disk space and 6GB of RAM. > > That's a big disk for today, though, you have to admit. I don't think > I've seen more than about 1TB actually on a machine. Most the people I know, fellow geeks, have at least 4TB of storage, usually broken down into c.3TB for data storage and 1TB for Time Machine. I have a friend whose home server was just upgrade to 15.75TB, and another who is putting in 5x2TB drives at the end of the month, pushing his home server 22TB (but 4TB of that is 'lost' to RAID). If I had the money, I'd be bumping up to ~10TB right now as I am running 85% full. The real trouble is, there is no way to backup these drives, so the only solution is to add more drives and RAID them to mitigate against failure and backup the really important stuff to yet more drives When I dropped in my 2x1.5TB drives last year (RAID0) I thought, "well, it's going to be a good long while before I fill up 3TB!" Yeah, not so much. I have less than 100GB free of that 3TB, though I have some DVD images on it that, once I finish converting them to h264 I can delete, so that will free up 50GB or so. Signature"I'm not bad; I'm just drawn that way." > [...] > Besides, it's been true for a number of years now that software written > in high-level languages often runs faster (up to about a 5% improvement) > than the same software written in C. I have serious doubt about this claim. Any reference? > than the same software written in C. That's because modern compilers do > a lot of code optimisation, but with a low-level language a lot of > optimisation possibilities aren't applicable. The usual argument is that the possibility of pointer aliasing (i.e., two lvalue expression giving to the same memory location) forces the compiler to assume every lvalue is volatile, and thus cannot do intelligent prefetch. However, pointer aliasing rarely happens in actual programs and any compiler worth its salt will have pragmatics that tell the compiler to ignore this consideration. They typically compare C to optimized Fortrain in calculations involving large arrays. Needless to say, few people use C for that purpose. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >>>> You always could "start" at numbers other than one. Or are >>>> you talking about the actual memory assigned to the array? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > for subscripts being out of bounds, and in fact that is what is done in > most of the modern programming languages I know something about. Those checks are usually done at compile time, not runtime. Your FORTRAN example implies that indexing doesn't have to be an integer. That's what I was thinking about when I made the statement about "had to cause bugs". Someday I should reread the 77 standard again. > The reason you get so many "array overrun" errors in C - it seems to be > the means most used by hackers to break system security - is not the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > less explicitly prohibits compilers from inserting checks for subscript > errors. I've scanned several C programming books, but haven't practiced it. > Admittedly the common "off by one" errors are often caused by zero-based > subscripting. With most programming languages, though, such an error > will make itself evident the first time you run the program, when you > run off the end of the array; Not if your testing doesn't test maximums+1 :-). My blind spot is exactly this when I coded. So I'd always give the program to somebody who would do that flavor of testing. >and the exception information will quickly > lead you to the cause of the crash. It's safe to declare subscript > ranges in any way that is natural to the application, as long as the > generated code includes range checks. Or you write your own. > The main thing that makes C so > unsuitable for real-world applications is the paucity of run-time checks. That's one of the problems with having to expand memory on demand rather than reserve it at compile time. Memory addressing space was a scarce resource waybackwhen. /BAH jmfbahciv wrote on Mon, 01 Mar 2010 07:37:01 -0500: >>>>> You always could "start" at numbers other than one. Or >>>>> are you talking about the actual memory assigned to the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> bounds, and in fact that is what is done in most of the >> modern programming languages I know something about. > Those checks are usually done at compile time, not runtime. Your > FORTRAN example implies that indexing doesn't have to be an integer. > That's what I was thinking about when I made the > statement about "had to cause bugs". Someday I should reread the 77 > standard again. The REAL statement refers to the contents of the array, You could also have, say, INTEGER (-33:33) :: A. I believe Fortran90 allows non integer indices but how they worked, I don't know, since I only scanned a book on that. I had been using C and C++ for a while then. Fortran compilers did not check for "out of bounds" errors as far as I remember. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > jmfbahciv wrote on Mon, 01 Mar 2010 07:37:01 -0500: > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > I believe Fortran90 allows non integer indices Algol 60, i.e. thirty years before Fortan90, allowed general expressions in array declarations, e.g. real array A(i*2 : fcall(p,3)); It wasn't particularly difficult to compile, since all code to compile general arithmetical expressions was already there. The expression (i*2) and the function call (fcall(p,3)) had to be evaluated at run time but that wasn't difficult either. The whole array declaration was evaluated at run time as if it were a function call which resulted in an area of memory being reserved on the top of the stack by pointing the top of the stack pointer beyond it. pjk > but how they worked, I > don't know, since I only scanned a book on that. I had been using C and > C++ for a while then. Fortran compilers did not check for "out of > bounds" errors as far as I remember. PaulJK wrote on Tue, 2 Mar 2010 21:01:20 +1300: > Algol 60, i.e. thirty years before Fortan90, allowed general > expressions in array declarations, e.g. > real array A(i*2 : fcall(p,3)); > It wasn't particularly difficult to compile, since all code to > compile general arithmetical expressions was already there. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > memory being reserved on the top of the stack by pointing > the top of the stack pointer beyond it. Actually, the first compiled language that I used was Algol in 1960. The resulting programs on the Burrouughs 220 were so pathetically unoptimized and slow that I ended up using machine language and a primitive assembler. I never brought myself to use Algol again. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > PaulJK wrote on Tue, 2 Mar 2010 21:01:20 +1300: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Actually, the first compiled language that I used was Algol in 1960. Not that it matters much but do you remember was it Algol60 or Algol58? The year 1960 sounds to me a bit too early for an actual commercial implemetation of Algol60. > The > resulting programs on the Burrouughs 220 were so pathetically > unoptimized and slow that I ended up using machine language and a > primitive assembler. > > I never brought myself to use Algol again. pjk PaulJK wrote on Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:58:29 +1300: >> PaulJK wrote on Tue, 2 Mar 2010 21:01:20 +1300: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> Actually, the first compiled language that I used was Algol >> in 1960. > Not that it matters much but do you remember was it Algol60 > or Algol58? > The year 1960 sounds to me a bit too early for an actual > commercial implemetation of Algol60. >> The >> resulting programs on the Burrouughs 220 were so pathetically >> unoptimized and slow that I ended up using machine language >> and a primitive assembler. >> >> I never brought myself to use Algol again. It probably was the 58 version but I am not very familiar with the history of Algol. I do seem to remember that the paper tape with the compiler was gotten by a somewhat informal arrangement with the Burroughs company. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:47:16 +1300, PaulJK > <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Probably: after all, its zero sense. <GROAN> ;-). /BAH > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:47:16 +1300, PaulJK > <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Probably: after all, its zero sense. I bet he would forge them too. pjk > Brian >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:47:16 +1300, PaulJK >> <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I bet he would forge them too. Drop-forge them? SignatureI heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt] >> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. > > Oh, absolutely. Why, I see people in the stores every day, > counting out their money or the number of items they're > going to purchase, and saying to themselves "Zero, one, two..." The initialized state of my shopping basket contains 0 items. Each item I put in increments it. If I initialized at 1, my shopping would crash with a 1-off error on unpacking. > ;-) " Signature"It is the role of librarians to keep government running in difficult times," replied Dramoren. "Librarians are the last line of defence against chaos." (McMullen 2001) Adam Funk filted: >>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >item I put in increments it. If I initialized at 1, my shopping would >crash with a 1-off error on unpacking. And if you crash a shopping cart, the store will ban you from coming there again in the future....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > item I put in increments it. If I initialized at 1, my shopping would > crash with a 1-off error on unpacking. If your shopping basket had been designed by a C programmer, its initial state would be the state just before the zeroth item was inserted. That suggests that initially the basket contains -1 items. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > >>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way > >>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > state would be the state just before the zeroth item was inserted. That > suggests that initially the basket contains -1 items. This is still wrong. As a database programmer, the initial state of my shopping basket is Null. Only after I make a decision about whether to buy Mallomars does the state (with respect to Mallomars) change to 0 or 1. The initial state is never -1. Don't be confused by the practical consideration of not being able to distinguish between Null and 0. In databases, there is no ambiguity at all, since anything added to a Null results in Null, anything compared to a Null is false. The same does NOT hold for values of 0. 99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer! If Null bottles should happen to fall, Null bottles of beer on the wall! > -- > Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org > For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >>>>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > there is no ambiguity at all, since anything added to a > Null results in Null, anything compared to a Null is false. Null compared to a Null is false too? > The same does NOT hold for values of 0. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org >> For an e-mail address, see my web page. > >>>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way > >>>>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Null compared to a Null is false too? Yep, there's a special function for this, isnull(). To compare A and B you must first test if either is null (assuming you actually need to know that rather than blindly accept the False that a A<B, A=B or A>B test will return). Makes database programming fun. > > The same does NOT hold for values of 0. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >>>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > state would be the state just before the zeroth item was inserted. That > suggests that initially the basket contains -1 items. This kind of speculation is bizarre. No, a programmer well verse in 0-base indexing would simply recognize that the number of items in the basket _before_ the <n>th item is inserted is <n>. Thus he would initialize the basket correctly at 0. Similarly, a programmer well verse in 1-base indexing would recognize that the number of items in the basket _after_ the <n>th item is inserted is <n>. Working back from there, he would thus also initialize the basket correctly at 0. 0-base indexing is more handy if one is interested in the "before" cardinality; whereas 1-base is more handy for the "after" cardinality. A prori, neither one is more "natural" than the other. However, in practice, it seems that the before cardinality is needed more often than the after one. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr >>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >>>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > state would be the state just before the zeroth item was inserted. That > suggests that initially the basket contains -1 items. "So I said to him, 'Moore, have you less than no apples in that basket?"..." SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) On Feb 26, 12:33 pm, Roland Hutchinson <my.spamt...@verizon.net> wrote: > >>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way > >>>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "So I said to him, 'Moore, have you less than no apples in that > basket?"..." False, of course. > -- > Roland Hutchinson [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> >>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >> >>>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > False, of course. Hard to tell definitively without empirical observation. Let's toss an apple in and see if any remain in the basket after we don't take any more out. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) > >> >>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way > >> >>>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Hard to tell definitively Not at all, adding to an unknown quantity always results in an unknown quantity. > without empirical observation. Then it wouldn't be unknown, would it? > Let's toss an > apple in and see if any remain in the basket after we don't take any more [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >>>>>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >>>>>>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > apple in and see if any remain in the basket after we don't take any more > out. If the basket contained a (large) unknown negative number of apples this method could be quite expensive. I propose to weigh the basket, then tip the negative apples out of the basket and weigh it again. Calculate the difference and divide it by an average weight of an apple. This method works reasonably well unless the basket also contains some negative watermelons. pjk On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:15:15 +1300, PaulJK <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in <news:hmd4vq$9nr$1@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>>>>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so >>>>>>>> obviously the Right Way that I can't imagine why >>>>>>>> anyone would do it the other way. >>>>>>> Oh, absolutely. Why, I see people in the stores >>>>>>> every day, counting out their money or the number >>>>>>> of items they're going to purchase, and saying to >>>>>>> themselves "Zero, one, two..." >>>>>> The initialized state of my shopping basket contains >>>>>> 0 items. Each item I put in increments it. If I >>>>>> initialized at 1, my shopping would crash with a >>>>>> 1-off error on unpacking. >>>>> If your shopping basket had been designed by a C >>>>> programmer, its initial state would be the state just >>>>> before the zeroth item was inserted. That suggests >>>>> that initially the basket contains -1 items. >>>> "So I said to him, 'Moore, have you less than no apples >>>> in that basket?"..." >>> False, of course. >> Hard to tell definitively without empirical observation. >> Let's toss an apple in and see if any remain in the >> basket after we don't take any more out. > If the basket contained a (large) unknown negative number > of apples this method could be quite expensive. I propose [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > method works reasonably well unless the basket also > contains some negative watermelons. In which case it's long since achieved escape velocity and is no longer our problem. Brian > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:15:15 +1300, PaulJK > <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > In which case it's long since achieved escape velocity and > is no longer our problem. Hah! Objects with negative weight do not need escape velocity to escape to space. They can ascend slowly with impressive majestic grace. pjk > Brian On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:39:57 +1300, PaulJK <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in <news:hmda2a$uic$1@news.eternal-september.org> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > Objects with negative weight do not need escape velocity > to escape to space. They can ascend slowly with > impressive majestic grace. Shopping baskets have a hard time achieving impressive majestic grace, even when filled with negative watermelons. Brian > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:39:57 +1300, PaulJK > <paul.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Shopping baskets have a hard time achieving impressive > majestic grace, even when filled with negative watermelons. If I were PTD I'd say: I didn't say they do, I said they can. If they felt like it, they could. pjk >> But 0 is the start of computer indexing - at least in real programs. 0 >> = Sunday. > > Ahem. In low level, pointer oriented languages such as C and its > family. And those who chose to imitate it. From Verity Stob's "Thirteen Ways to Loathe VB": 4. Another thing about arrays. The index of the first element is 0, unless it is set to 1 by a directive. 5. But there are also collections, modern object-oriented versions of arrays. And the first element of these is usually 1, unless it happens to be 0. Sometimes it is 0 and sometimes it is 1, depending on where you found it. Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya? SignatureI don't know what they have to say It makes no difference anyway; Whatever it is, I'm against it! [Prof. Wagstaff] Adam Funk filted: >On 2010-02-21, António Marques wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > depending on where you found it. Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, > do ya? In APL, indexing starts at one unless you've explicitly set it to zero by setting the system variable quad-IO....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>: >Adam Funk filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >In APL, indexing starts at one unless you've explicitly set it to zero by >setting the system variable quad-IO....r In Perl, indexing starts at zero unless you've explicitly set it to one by setting the system variable $[. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>: >>In APL, indexing starts at one unless you've explicitly set it to zero by >>setting the system variable quad-IO....r > > In Perl, indexing starts at zero unless you've explicitly set it to one > by setting the system variable $[. I like the notes in _Programming Perl_: (Mnemonic: [ begins subscripts.) Assignment to $[ ... is discouraged. SignatureI don't know what they have to say It makes no difference anyway; Whatever it is, I'm against it! [Prof. Wagstaff] > In APL, indexing starts at one unless you've explicitly set it to zero by > setting the system variable quad-IO....r "quad-IO" ... are you winding me up? SignatureDo you know what they do to book thieves up at Santa Rita? http://www.shigabooks.com/indeces/bookhunter.html >> In APL, indexing starts at one unless you've explicitly set it to zero by >> setting the system variable quad-IO....r > > "quad-IO" ... are you winding me up? Just remembered that that means "#IO", therefore arguably no sillier than "$[". Never mind. SignatureUsenet is a cesspool, a dung heap. [Patrick A. Townson] Adam Funk filted: >>> In APL, indexing starts at one unless you've explicitly set it to zero by >>> setting the system variable quad-IO....r [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Just remembered that that means "#IO", therefore arguably no sillier >than "$[". Never mind. Actually, it means some funky character that I can't type here...it's drawn as a rectangle and pronounced "quad" by the APLinese.... (Comments are denoted by the "lamp" character, made by overstriking "jot" and "up-shoe")....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >>>> In APL, indexing starts at one unless you've explicitly set it to zero by >>>> setting the system variable quad-IO....r > Actually, it means some funky character that I can't type here...it's drawn as a > rectangle and pronounced "quad" by the APLinese.... Aha, found the chart: http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2300.pdf So I guess quad refers to the quadrilateral (ba-boom) over the L in this diagram? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:APL-keybd2.svg > (Comments are denoted by the "lamp" character, made by overstriking "jot" and > "up-shoe")....r As an emacs user, I'm not going to mock someone else's mnemnonics. BTW, I've noticed that you can get 'aplus-fsf' packages for modern GNU/Linux systems: A+ is a powerful and efficient programming language. It is freely available under the GNU General Public License. It embodies a rich set of functions and operators, a modern graphical user interface with many widgets and automatic synchronization of widgets and variables, asynchronous execution of functions associated with variables and events, dynamic loading of user compiled subroutines, and many other features. Execution is by a rather efficient interpreter. A+ was created at Morgan Stanley. Primarily used in a computationally-intensive business environment, many critical applications written in A+ have withstood the demands of real world developers over many years. Written in an interpreted language, A+ applications tend to be portable. SignatureUnix is a user-friendly operating system. It's just very choosy about its friends. Adam Funk filted: >> (Comments are denoted by the "lamp" character, made by overstriking "jot" and >> "up-shoe")....r > >As an emacs user, I'm not going to mock someone else's mnemnonics. (Not as long as the word "hexlify" appears in the standard command set, you're not....) "Jot" and "up-shoe" are official, if the Unicode charts are anything to go by..."lamp" is merely conventional, and I always thought the thing looked more like an upraised thumb anyway....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > Adam Funk filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (Not as long as the word "hexlify" appears in the standard command set, you're > not....) Thanks for the tip. I wasn't familiar with that command, and from now on it will save me the trouble having to drop out to hexedit (not very often, I admit). SignatureUnix is a user-friendly operating system. It's just very choosy about its friends. Adam Funk filted: >> Adam Funk filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >on it will save me the trouble having to drop out to hexedit (not very >often, I admit). Some of the data I used to work with made it so essential that I bound the keys M-C-x to it....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > Adam Funk filted: >> On 2010-02-21, António Marques wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > In APL, indexing starts at one unless you've explicitly set it to zero by > setting the system variable quad-IO....r And a proper code would always set the index explictly, just in case something burbed when it should have barfed. /BAH > But 0 is the start of computer indexing - at least in real programs. Real Programs are of course written by Real Programmers, and Real Programmers know that even toy languages like Visual BASIC have OPTION BASE 1. From this and later remarks, it is obvious that you are a Quiche Eater. I expect that you even think that integer overflow is an error to be avoided, instead of an opportunity for creative uses of computed GOTO. > > And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that > > is an incontrovertible fact. > > Don't be ridiculous: it's merely a convention. For many of > us Monday is unquestionably the first day of the week. It's historically true. No one questioned it before modern times. Andrew Usher >> > And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that >> > is an incontrovertible fact. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Andrew Usher The Hebrew/Jewish Jubilee Calendar, dating back to 4000 BC has always shown the First day as they currently interpret it. That is, the Seventh Day starts at sundown on the Roman Calendar Friday evening and ends at sundown on Saturday. The First day then starts as the Seventh day ends. The First day then is Saturday evening through Sunday evening. Gordon On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:42:12 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in <news:732e9ee5-5de8-42e1-9efb-5d5194689d7d@q29g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that >>> is an incontrovertible fact. >> Don't be ridiculous: it's merely a convention. For many of >> us Monday is unquestionably the first day of the week. > It's historically true. No one questioned it before modern times. Apparently you're not familiar with the Slavic and Baltic day-names. For that matter, Sunday is the first day in Jewish tradition for the same reason that Monday is the first day for many of us today. Brian > >>> And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that > >>> is an incontrovertible fact. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Jewish tradition for the same reason that Monday is the > first day for many of us today. The Slavic and Baltic day names come from Greek tradition (itself aberrant), not from Western tradition where it was always Sunday. In addition, it's probably true that the astrological week came before the Jews adopted it. Andrew Usher On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:16:33 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in <news:b4f5113c-dd5f-4315-b72c-0ec03d2fda31@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>>> And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that >>>>> is an incontrovertible fact. >>>> Don't be ridiculous: it's merely a convention. For many of >>>> us Monday is unquestionably the first day of the week. >>> It's historically true. No one questioned it before modern times. >> Apparently you're not familiar with the Slavic and Baltic >> day-names. For that matter, Sunday is the first day in >> Jewish tradition for the same reason that Monday is the >> first day for many of us today. > The Slavic and Baltic day names come from Greek tradition You're mistaken. The Greek names for Monday through Thursday are <Δευτέρα>, <Τρίτη>, <Τετάρτη>, and <Πέμπτη>, essentially 'second', 'third', 'fourth', and 'fifth', a numbering making Sunday the first day; the Russian names for Tuesday through Friday are <вторник>, <среда>, <четверг>, and <пятница>, essentially 'second', 'middle', 'fourth', and 'fifth', a numbering making Monday the first day. The only Slavic name borrowed from Greek is the name for Saturday, Russian <суббота>. > (itself aberrant), Hardly. [...] Brian >>>>>> And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that >>>>>> is an incontrovertible fact. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Slavic name borrowed from Greek is the name for Saturday, > Russian <суббота>. In Latvian, the days from Monday to Sunday are: pirmdiena (first day) otrdiena (second day) trešdiena (third day) ceturtdiena (fourth day) piektdiena (fifth day) sestdiena (sixth day) svētdiena (holy day) SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>> And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that >>>>> is an incontrovertible fact. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The Slavic and Baltic day names come from Greek tradition (itself > aberrant), not from Western tradition where it was always Sunday. Where did you get that nonsense? If you actually checked the Slavic/Baltic and Greek day names you'd find that they obviously do NOT follow the same tradition. Hey, what a surprise, Greek day names treat Sunday as the day number one! pjk > In addition, it's probably true that the astrological week came before > the Jews adopted it. > > Andrew Usher PaulJK wrote:. > > The Slavic and Baltic day names come from Greek tradition (itself > > aberrant), not from Western tradition where it was always Sunday. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tradition. Hey, what a surprise, Greek day names treat Sunday > as the day number one! OK, it seems I was wrong? Where do they come from, then? Andrew Usher > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:42:12 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher ><k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Brian The Russians start with Ponyedel'nik/Monday (start of the week), Vtornik/Tuesday (second day), Sreda/Wendesday (the middle day), Chetverg/Thursday (the fourth day), Pyatnitsa/Friday (the fifth day, which is often referred to as Pyanitsa, "drunk day"), Subbota/Saturday (the sabbath), and Voskresen'ye/Sunday (resurrection). SignaturePatrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: Houston 4, Peoria 1 (February 21) NEXT GAME: Thursday, February 25 vs. Manitoba, 5:05 Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: >And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that is an >incontrovertible fact. Crap. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: >> And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that is an >> incontrovertible fact. > > Crap. Perhaps we could just point everyone to the last thread discussing which is the first day of the week. SignatureCheryl (votes for Sunday) Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >> Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: >>> And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that is an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Perhaps we could just point everyone to the last thread discussing >which is the first day of the week. I don't think you've characterised that thread quite right. People discussed which day of the week was most convenient for them. IIRC no- one was insisting that one day was *the* first day of the week. But if anyone subscribes to the view that there is a "the" first day of the week, they should take a look at the International Standard ISO 8601, in which weeks are defined as beginning on Monday. >-- >Cheryl (votes for Sunday) SignatureMike Barnes (doesn't think it's a voting matter) Cheshire, England > Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >>> Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the week, they should take a look at the International Standard ISO > 8601, in which weeks are defined as beginning on Monday. Perhaps you should look at this: http://tinyurl.com/ybvrll5 The rest of the world seems to have told International Standard ISO 8601 to get stuffed, along with the International Standard Language Esperanto. >>-- >>Cheryl (votes for Sunday) Androcles <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_u>: >"Mike Barnes" <mikebarnes@bluebottle.com> wrote in message news:W1kjfgY >Nc$fLFwe3@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >The rest of the world seems to have told International Standard ISO 8601 >to get stuffed, <shrug> http://tinyurl.com/ydj7ywc Europe uses week numbers much more than the USA. I view the American week-starts-on-Sunday thing in much the same light as feet and inches, degrees Fahrenheit, etc. >along with the International Standard Language Esperanto. Esperanto is nothing to do with the ISO. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Androcles <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_u>: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > <shrug> <snipping courtesy returned, bigot. shrug> *plonk* Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated; you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive, unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread. Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are left to decide which is most applicable to you. There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill- filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the same spot and repeat the process eternally. This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry or crackpot theories without challenge. You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I purchase a new computer or hard drive. Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been restored to the list. I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you. I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't, damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and f.ck off. On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:10:50 -0000, Androcles <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote in <news:lQTfn.100919$zD4.100739@newsfe19.ams2> in sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca>: >>>> Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: >>>>> And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that is an >>>>> incontrovertible fact. >>>> Crap. >>>Perhaps we could just point everyone to the last thread discussing >>>which is the first day of the week. >> I don't think you've characterised that thread quite right. People >> discussed which day of the week was most convenient for them. IIRC no- >> one was insisting that one day was *the* first day of the week. >> But if anyone subscribes to the view that there is a "the" first day of >> the week, they should take a look at the International Standard ISO >> 8601, in which weeks are defined as beginning on Monday. > Perhaps you should look at this: > http://tinyurl.com/ybvrll5 So what? It seems likely that calendar layout is to a large extent a matter of tradition. [...] Brian > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:10:50 -0000, Androcles > <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote in > <news:lQTfn.100919$zD4.100739@newsfe19.ams2> in > [...] > > Brian [...] *plonk* Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated; you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive, unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread. Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are left to decide which is most applicable to you. There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill- filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the same spot and repeat the process eternally. This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry or crackpot theories without challenge. You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I purchase a new computer or hard drive. Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been restored to the list. I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you. I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't, damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and f.ck off. Androcles > Cheryl <cperkins mun.ca>: >>> Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc yahoo.com>: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the week, they should take a look at the International Standard ISO > 8601, in which weeks are defined as beginning on Monday. Or you could look at a calendar. >>-- >>Cheryl (votes for Sunday) Mikey Mikey Mikey... You shouldn't pretend to know something about language if you don't know that such things are decided by consensus. Signature> Path: news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail > From: Mike Barnes <mikebarnes bluebottle.com> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Cancel-Lock: sha1:bncnCOOnlZuEjLwWpxKJZjZVXhI= > User-Agent: Turnpike/6.05-U (<aXFnzlbWeBuhkJrn2gp6alFqRv>) >> Cheryl<cperkins mun.ca>: >>>> Andrew Usher<k_over_hbarc yahoo.com>: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Or you could look at a calendar. What on earth is that supposed to mean? Some calendars use Monday as the first day and others Sunday. SignatureRobert Bannister Robert Bannister <robban1 bigpond.com> wrote: > John Doe wrote: >> Mike Barnes<mikebarnes bluebottle.com> wrote: >>> Cheryl<cperkins mun.ca>: >>>> Mike Barnes wrote: >>>>> Andrew Usher<k_over_hbarc yahoo.com>: >>>>>> And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that >>>>>> is an incontrovertible fact. >>>>> Crap. >>>> Perhaps we could just point everyone to the last thread >>>> discussing which is the first day of the week. >>> But if anyone subscribes to the view that there is a "the" >>> first day of the week, they should take a look at the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What on earth is that supposed to mean? Every calendar I have seen in the United States starts on Sunday. > Some calendars use Monday as the first day and others Sunday. Define "some". Signature> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail > From: Robert Bannister <robban1 bigpond.com> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 > In-Reply-To: <4e3cfcd8$0$21201$c3e8da3$a8a65a91 news.astraweb.com> >Robert Bannister <robban1 bigpond.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Define "some". I always have a Yahoo Calendar up on my second monitor. The first day of the week is Monday. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida tony cooper <tony_cooper213 earthlink.net> wrote: > John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote: >>Robert Bannister <robban1 bigpond.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I always have a Yahoo Calendar up on my second monitor. The > first day of the week is Monday. Sunday is behind "Calendars and Search". Try clicking on "Hide Calendars and Search" you moronic troll. Signature> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!feed.news.qwest.net!mpls-nntp-06.inet.qwest.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail > From: tony cooper <tony_cooper213 earthlink.net> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110806-1, 08/06/2011), Outbound message > X-Antivirus-Status: Clean John Doe wrote, in <4e3e02a9$0$13534$c3e8da3$aae71a0a@news.astraweb.com> on 07 Aug 2011 03:12:42 GMT: > Robert Bannister <robban1 bigpond.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Define "some". It is a pondian thing. Here in Ireland they use Monday. Windows (Vista anyway) knows about that – if you define your Region to Windows as UK or Ireland the calendar that pops up when you click on the time uses Monday, if as United States it uses Sunday. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE > John Doe wrote, in <4e3e02a9$0$13534$c3e8da3$aae71a0a@news.astraweb.com> > on 07 Aug 2011 03:12:42 GMT: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Ireland the calendar that pops up when you click on the time uses > Monday, if as United States it uses Sunday. I thought most people in the USA were Christians. Don't they realize that on Sundays they are remembering the day God rested? Signatureathel > Nick Spalding said: >>>>>> Cheryl<cperkins mun.ca>: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I thought most people in the USA were Christians. Don't they realize > that on Sundays they are remembering the day God rested? Actually, of course, not. It's the Lord's Day, however many heretics call it the Sabbath. But it is part of the week*end*, after all. >> Nick Spalding said: >>>>>>> Cheryl<cperkins mun.ca>: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Actually, of course, not. It's the Lord's Day, however many heretics > call it the Sabbath. Well, of course: I carefully avoided saying that Sunday was the Sabbath! > But it is part of the week*end*, after all. Signatureathel > CDB said: >>> Nick Spalding said: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Well, of course: I carefully avoided saying that Sunday was the > Sabbath! True. <slaps wrist> Ow. Sorry, so you did. Easy enough to remember on the following day, unless they got drunk while resting. I mostly wanted to post the "weekend" part: >> But it is part of the week*end*, after all. >>>>>>>>> Andrew Usher<k_over_hbarc yahoo.com>: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> the first day of the week is Sunday > [Sunday] is part of the week*end* Sometimes logic fails you. Signature> Path: border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail > From: "CDB" <bellemarec sympatico.ca> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >>>>>>>>>> Andrew Usher<k_over_hbarc yahoo.com>: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sometimes logic fails you. Sometimes it's just nerve. Actually, I agree that the week properly begins on Sunday, on historical grounds. I don't think people are disagreeing with you on that point as much as it may seem; most of the objections are to your style. Sweeping assertions often provoke questions and counter-examples here and, while one contributor may sometimes insult another as bluntly as you have done, it would only be after greater provocation than what has been setting you off. "CDB" <bellemarec sympatico.ca> wrote: > John Doe wrote: >> "CDB" <bellemarec sympatico.ca> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sometimes it's just nerve. Actually, I agree that the week > properly begins on Sunday, I figured that. But, sometimes, trying to figure out whether someone is playing dumb or intentionally misleading is difficult. Especially in a public forum where anybody in the world can participate. It's usually not worth the effort IMO. > on historical grounds. I don't think people are disagreeing > with you on that point as much as it may seem; most of the > objections are to your style. Sweeping assertions often provoke > questions and counter-examples Yeah, like the idiot troll saying his Yahoo Calendar starts on Monday because he couldn't see Sunday since it was covered by an optional window. Who is more the troll, the troll or the troll who trolls the troll. And then there is real life. I try to spend as much time as possible there, honestly. Signature> here > and, while one contributor may sometimes insult another as > bluntly as you have done, it would only be after greater > provocation than what has been setting you off. > Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail > From: "CDB" <bellemarec sympatico.ca> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >Yeah, like the idiot troll saying his Yahoo Calendar starts on >Monday because he couldn't see Sunday since it was covered by an >optional window. My gracious. My Yahoo calendar starts on Monday, but ends - across the screen - at Sunday. I don't know where you got the idea that I couldn't "see" Sunday. It was the sequence of days displayed, not the number of days displayed, that was commented on. There may be an option to change which day occupies the left-hand column. I haven't bothered to check because it doesn't make a difference to me. I keep the calendar up because I enter events in the little squares to remind me of things coming up. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >It was the sequence of days displayed, not the number of days >displayed, that was commented on. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >difference to me. I keep the calendar up because I enter events in >the little squares to remind me of things coming up. Most of the online calendars let you choose whether you want Sunday or Monday in the lefthand column. Unfortunately printed diaries don't, and in recent years it has been getting increasingly difficult to find one that begins the week on Sunday. As a result I frequently write appointments on the wrong day, because, as I get older, my eyes are getting worse, and so I rely on the position on the page rather than the pale print diary publishers use to mark the days. I remember seeing diaries that began the week on Monday in the Netherlands in the 1960s, but they didn't penetrate here until the 1980s or later. Now one has no alternative. SignatureSteve 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 >> It was the sequence of days displayed, not the number of days >> displayed, that was commented on. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > eyes are getting worse, and so I rely on the position on the page rather than > the pale print diary publishers use to mark the days. That's especially a problem in France, where both Tuesday and Wednesday tend to be shown as M. I've often been confused by that: sometimes noting appointments on the wrong day, sometimes reading them wrongly. Next time I'm in Barcelona I shall have look and see if Catalan appointments diaries show every day as D (Dilluns, Dimarts, Dimecres, Dijous, Divendres, Dissabte, Diumenge). > I remember seeing diaries that began the week on Monday in the Netherlands in > the 1960s, but they didn't penetrate here until the 1980s or later. Now one > has no alternative. Signatureathel Athel Cornish-Bowden filted: >> I frequently write appointments on the wrong day, because, as I get older, my >> eyes are getting worse, and so I rely on the position on the page rather than [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >appointments diaries show every day as D (Dilluns, Dimarts, Dimecres, >Dijous, Divendres, Dissabte, Diumenge). I think I like the kanji solution to this best: sun, moon, fire, water, wood, gold, earth.... It's another of those cross-cultural coincidences that "gold day" is the most common payday....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. >> Yeah, like the idiot troll saying his Yahoo Calendar starts on >> Monday because he couldn't see Sunday since it was covered by an >> optional window. > > My gracious. New to me, Mr C. Is that a conflation of "My goodness!" and "Good gracious!"? [aue only] SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>> Yeah, like the idiot troll saying his Yahoo Calendar starts on >>> Monday because he couldn't see Sunday since it was covered by an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >[aue only] As far as I know, "My gracious" is a common saying in the US albeit one heard more in nursing homes and retirement facilities than in Starbucks. I'm not quite ready for a nursing home, but too old to think that a $3.00 cup of coffee is not outrageous. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> Yeah, like the idiot troll saying his Yahoo Calendar starts on >>>> Monday because he couldn't see Sunday since it was covered by an [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I'm not quite ready for a nursing home, but too old to think that a > $3.00 cup of coffee is not outrageous. It's probably the polystyrene cups that cost all the money. I was commenting the other day that I thought it absurd that our institute was spending 8000 euros a year for a chilled drinking water fountain. I was told that it was the plastic cups that were so expensive. (I don't suppose that is true, but that's what I was told.) Signatureathel Tony Cooper: > > I'm not quite ready for a nursing home, but too old to think that a > > $3.00 cup of coffee is not outrageous. Athel Cornish-Bowden: > It's probably the polystyrene cups that cost all the money. I was > commenting the other day that I thought it absurd that our institute > was spending 8000 euros a year for a chilled drinking water fountain. I > was told that it was the plastic cups that were so expensive. (I don't > suppose that is true, but that's what I was told.) To me, "drinking fountain" or "water fountain" implies that you are intended to drink directly from a rising stream of water. http://www.ysecrets.com/wp-content/uploads/push-bar-drinking-fountain.png (The water may or may not be chilled.) A device that dispenses chilled water downwards to fill cups with http://www.bottledspringwater.ca/images/vail-w.jpg is a "water cooler". SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | Keep out of eyes--if this occurs, rinse with water. msb@vex.net | (Directions seen on shampoo bottle) My text in this article is in the public domain. > Tony Cooper: >>> I'm not quite ready for a nursing home, but too old to think that a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > is a "water cooler". Yes. I didn't think "water fountain" was quite right, but I couldn't think of the proper term. Signatureathel >>>> Yeah, like the idiot troll saying his Yahoo Calendar starts on >>>> Monday because he couldn't see Sunday since it was covered by an [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > one heard more in nursing homes and retirement facilities than in > Starbucks. I've heard "Gracious me", but not "My gracious". Regional usage? <snip> SignatureSkitt (SF Bay Area) http://come.to/skitt >>>>> Yeah, like the idiot troll saying his Yahoo Calendar starts on >>>>> Monday because he couldn't see Sunday since it was covered by an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >I've heard "Gracious me", but not "My gracious". Regional usage? Arggh. There's that "regional" again. My mother and grandmother used it, and I - obviously - use it. Does that mean that it is a regional expression in Indiana and now in Florida? I see "Oh, my gracious" used by at least one blogger, but her location is not pin-pointed. She does mention going wading in the Pacific, so she's not in Indiana or Florida. The "Oh, my gracious" gets other hits, but not any for the naked "My gracious". I've also heard, and used, "Oh, my goodness gracious". Wiktionary lists it, but doesn't pin it down to regional usage. Acronyms.net lists "OMG" as an acronym for "Oh My Gracious", but I would have thought more people mean "Oh My God" when they text OMG. Why is it that when we haven't personally heard an expression we want to write it off as a "regionalism"? Couldn't it be that we simply hear but do not register a usage around us? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>> Yeah, like the idiot troll saying his Yahoo Calendar starts on >>>>>> Monday because he couldn't see Sunday since it was covered by an [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > to write it off as a "regionalism"? Couldn't it be that we simply > hear but do not register a usage around us? I suppose it is possible, but I have a hard time believing it. As for "goodness gracious" -- yes, *that* I have heard and even used myself. SignatureSkitt (SF Bay Area) http://come.to/skitt Skitt filted: >> I see "Oh, my gracious" used by at least one blogger, but her location >> is not pin-pointed. She does mention going wading in the Pacific, so [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I suppose it is possible, but I have a hard time believing it. As for >"goodness gracious" -- yes, *that* I have heard and even used myself. Great balls of fire!...r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. >>>> Yeah, like the idiot troll saying his Yahoo Calendar starts on >>>> Monday because he couldn't see Sunday since it was covered by an [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I'm not quite ready for a nursing home, but too old to think that a > $3.00 cup of coffee is not outrageous. Starbucks doesn't charge $3 for a cup of coffee. It's a dollar something. SignatureJared >>>> Yeah, like the idiot troll saying his Yahoo Calendar starts on >>>> Monday because he couldn't see Sunday since it was covered by an [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I'm not quite ready for a nursing home, but too old to think that a > $3.00 cup of coffee is not outrageous. Coincidentally, there was an article in this morning's paper about how a cup of coffee here in Perth averaged $4.25 as opposed to $3.09 in Sydney and $3.20 nationwide. (No, we don't have nine cent coins - this was the mean price). SignatureRobert Bannister >>> Yeah, like the idiot troll saying his Yahoo Calendar starts on >>> Monday because he couldn't see Sunday since it was covered by an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > [aue only] My Utah-raised grandmother (wrists on hips): "My goodness gracious!" My Liverpool-born, Utah-raised grandfather (brows low over bridge of nose): "Cat hair!" SignatureFrank ess > >>>>>>>>> Andrew Usher<k_over_hbarc yahoo.com>: > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sometimes logic fails you. And you know what about logic how? SignatureJohn Varela > And you know what about logic how? I form things out of logic. Useful things. Signature> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail > From: "John Varela" <newlamps verizon.net> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Cancel-Lock: sha1:g8h7BKvoX5DLORpVrf7Vf7yIcuQ= > User-Agent: ProNews/2 V1.58.cp116 > Actually, of course, not. It's the Lord's Day, however many heretics > call it the Sabbath. But it is part of the week*end*, after all. The week has 2 ends the start and the finish. Which is Sunday? === = DUG. === > I thought most people in the USA were Christians. Don't they realize > that on Sundays they are remembering the day God rested? The ones that actually know their own religion know that they are not. Christ rose from the dead on the day _after_ the Sabbath, the first day of the week. All four New Testament gospels are explicit on this point. >> I thought most people in the USA were Christians. Don't they realize >> that on Sundays they are remembering the day God rested? > >The ones that actually know their own religion know that they are not. >Christ rose from the dead on the day _after_ the Sabbath, the first day >of the week. All four New Testament gospels are explicit on this point. But, though remaining pretty shallow, the waters do deepen appreciably at this point. Some Christian sects like to accentuate their Jewish heritage, and others don't. I think the use of "Sabbath" in a notional or functional sense rather than a calendrical one belongs to the former. SignatureMike. On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 15:06:02 +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: >> I thought most people in the USA were Christians. Don't they realize >> that on Sundays they are remembering the day God rested? > > The ones that actually know their own religion know that they are not. > Christ rose from the dead on the day _after_ the Sabbath, the first day > of the week. All four New Testament gospels are explicit on this point. No disagreement. I didn't say Christians thought that Sunday was the day God rested; I said that on Sunday Christians were remembering that day, with the implication that in many churches the day of rest had been deliberately redfined so as not to be the day the Jews celebrated it. Signatureathel > John Doe wrote, in<4e3e02a9$0$13534$c3e8da3$aae71a0a@news.astraweb.com> > on 07 Aug 2011 03:12:42 GMT: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Ireland the calendar that pops up when you click on the time uses > Monday, if as United States it uses Sunday. One assumes that if they start their week on Sunday, that their only day of rest is Saturday. SignatureRobert Bannister Robert Bannister <robban1 bigpond.com> wrote: > Nick Spalding wrote: >> John Doe wrote >>> Every calendar I have seen in the United States starts on >>> Sunday. >> It is a pondian thing. Here in Ireland they use Monday. >> Windows (Vista anyway) knows about that ƒ " if you define your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > One assumes that if they start their week on Sunday, that their > only day of rest is Saturday. You are making assumptions. We weren't speaking of religion, but since you bring it up... I get the impression that writing is the second most politically correct occupation in the world. That would be one reason the Bible is very important. Signature> Path: border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!postnews.google.com!news3.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail > From: Robert Bannister <robban1 bigpond.com> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 > In-Reply-To: <0dos37detjs59d0tuqbu8j5a41ihf1g9d8 4ax.com> >>>> Cheryl<cperkins mun.ca>: >>>>>> Andrew Usher<k_over_hbarc yahoo.com>: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Define "some". At least half of those sold here. SignatureRobert Bannister >>>>> Cheryl<cperkins mun.ca>: >>>>>>> Andrew Usher<k_over_hbarc yahoo.com>: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > At least half of those sold here. Likewise the calendar on my California-designed computer starts the week on Monday. Signatureathel >Every calendar I have seen in the United States starts on Sunday. Never cracked open a weekly pocket calendar, have you? Most brands have the page divided in three, and they start the week on Monday so that the weekend fits in a single box. Even where the page is divided in four, though, every one I've ever seen starts the week on Monday. ¬R [invalid newsgroup deleted] Glenn Knickerbocker filted: >>Every calendar I have seen in the United States starts on Sunday. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >so that the weekend fits in a single box. Even where the page is divided in >four, though, every one I've ever seen starts the week on Monday. WIWAL, the week clearly started on Saturday...all you had to do to prove it was to look at TV Guide...what's more, each day began at 6:00am, so any station that stayed on the air into the wee hours would have shows starting at three o'clock Thursday night, which was four hours after eleven o'clock Thursday night and four hours before seven o'clock Friday morning.... There were also two kinds of channels: white numbers on black backgrounds and black numbers on white backgrounds...in pairs they tended to run the same shows at the same times, but nobody I knew got the black-on-white channels.... Now (strangely given that *all* stations stay on the air round the clock if only to air infomercials) TV Guide has decided that the week begins on Monday, and there *are* no hours outside of seven to ten pm except on the pay-TV movie channels....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. > WIWAL, the week clearly started on Saturday... Lawyers start the week on Saturday? > all you had to do to prove it was to look at TV Guide...what's more, each day > began at 6:00am, [...] This is also true for non-lawyers reading TV listings. > Now (strangely given that *all* stations stay on the air round the clock if only > to air infomercials)TV Guide has decided [...] This, however, is not true. In these days of digital television, some stations go off the air entirely at certain times of day and their bandwidth is taken up by other stations. >> WIWAL, the week clearly started on Saturday... > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > stations go off the air entirely at certain times of day and their > bandwidth is taken up by other stations. If you are talking about over-the-air TV stations in the same service area, I'd like some specific examples of this, perhaps an FCC channel assignment chart. If you are referring to digital sub-channels, well, that's a different thing, and leads to the question of how you define a "station". Some radio stations in the US do leave the air and are replaced by other stations on the same frequency. And some radio stations are daylight-only stations, leaving the air at sunset. A local example is the University of Arizona's public AM station, KUAZ-AM. It's a 25 kilowatt station, which is quite powerful for a local station, and would interfere with other stations on the same frequency around the country when night time skip begins. Most of the powerful AM stations broadcast at 50 kilowatts and are so-called "clear channel" stations so there are no other stations on the same frequency. SignatureDave Hatunen: Free Baja Arizona >> WIWAL, the week clearly started on Saturday... > > Lawyers start the week on Saturday? Lockheed Martin payroll accounting weeks start on Saturdays, unless they have changed things since I retired. SignatureSkitt (SF Bay Area) http://come.to/skitt >>> WIWAL, the week clearly started on Saturday... >> >> Lawyers start the week on Saturday? > > Lockheed Martin payroll accounting weeks start on Saturdays, unless they > have changed things since I retired. County pay period ended Thursday, 11:59pm and a bit; during the era of hand-entered and -verified hours the cards were "turned in" at noon on Thursday. Twelve hours of conjecture, if not deceit. SignatureFrank ess > Robert Bannister <robban1 bigpond.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Every calendar I have seen in the United States starts on Sunday. Haven't travelled much, have you? You ought to get out more often. > > Some calendars use Monday as the first day and others Sunday. > > Define "some". Every calendar in any country where the people believe that Sunday is the sabbath and that the sabbath is the seventh day. SignatureJohn Varela >> Robert Bannister <robban1 bigpond.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Every calendar in any country where the people believe that Sunday >is the sabbath and that the sabbath is the seventh day. The Orlando area has more Seventh Day Adventists than most areas. Their sabbath is Saturday. I wonder if they have their own calendar that is any different. I've never noticed. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > >> Robert Bannister <robban1 bigpond.com> wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Their sabbath is Saturday. I wonder if they have their own calendar > that is any different. I've never noticed. Don't the Seventh Day Adventists keep Saturday as the sabbath? Yes, here we are: http://www.adventist.org/world-church/name-mission/ "The name Seventh-day Adventist includes vital beliefs for us as a Church. 'Adventist' reflects our passionate conviction in the nearness of the soon return ('advent') of Jesus. 'Seventh-day' refers to the Biblical Sabbath which from Creation has always been the seventh day of the week, or Saturday." SignatureJohn Varela >>>>>>>>>> And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that >>>>>>>>>> is an incontrovertible fact. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > refers to the Biblical Sabbath which from Creation has always been > the seventh day of the week, or Saturday." I see that the at creation time, the powers that be used the American type of calendar. Good on them. SignatureSkitt (SF Bay Area) http://come.to/skitt >> Don't the Seventh Day Adventists keep Saturday as the sabbath? Yes, >> here we are: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I see that the at creation time, the powers that be used the American > type of calendar. Good on them. Indeed. Like any good Hard-Working American, the Christian God was up brisk and early at 08:00 on Sunday morning and ready for a good working day's work. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> writes: >>> Don't the Seventh Day Adventists keep Saturday as the sabbath? Yes, >>> here we are: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > brisk and early at 08:00 on Sunday morning and ready for a good > working day's work. Sundown Saturday night. (No sun yet, but still sundown.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ Still with HP Labs |He who will not reason, is a bigot; SF Bay Area (1982-) |he who cannot is a fool; and he who Chicago (1964-1982) |dares not is a slave. | Sir William Drummond evan.kirshenbaum@gmail.com http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> > writes: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Sundown Saturday night. (No sun yet, but still sundown.) What did he do between Saturday night and the time he created light? Or does separating light from darkness imply the creation of the darkness first, and then the light on Sunday morning? SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>>> Don't the Seventh Day Adventists keep Saturday as the sabbath? Yes, >>>>> here we are: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> > What did he do between Saturday night and the time he created light? Went out clubbing? > Or does separating light from darkness imply the creation of the > darkness first, and then the light on Sunday morning? I'm in the dark on that one. SignatureSkitt (SF Bay Area) http://come.to/skitt >> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> >> writes: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> > What did he do between Saturday night and the time he created light? Sent a wind sweeping over the water.[1] > Or does separating light from darkness imply the creation of the > darkness first, Nope. Like the water (see note below), the darkness and chaos (and God) were there when he started. If I were pressed, I'd say that the land was there, too, just covered by the water before he put the sky in and collected the bottom water into one place.[2] (The dry land "appears" in the NJPS translation.) > and then the light on Sunday morning? [1] At least some Jewish tradition holds that water is "uncreated", which is why there's no blessing for it. You're not supposed to drink wine or eat pretty much anything without blessing God as the creator of the stuff that went into your food. But there's no blessing for water, because "When God began to create heaven and earth", the water was already there. [2] He "creates" earth (in both this and the Genesis 2 story), but what he calls "Earth" is specifically *dry* land. Arguably, he didn't make the land, but he made it dry by removing the water. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ Still with HP Labs |Oh, forget it: I can't write about SF Bay Area (1982-) |this anymore until I find a much Chicago (1964-1982) |more sarcastic typeface. | Bill Bickel evan.kirshenbaum@gmail.com http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> >> Robert Bannister <robban1 bigpond.com> wrote: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >Don't the Seventh Day Adventists keep Saturday as the sabbath? Yes, >here we are: Isn't that what I wrote above? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > >Don't the Seventh Day Adventists keep Saturday as the sabbath? Yes, > >here we are: > > Isn't that what I wrote above? Yes. I need to learn to read for content. SignatureJohn Varela >> Robert Bannister <robban1 bigpond.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Every calendar in any country where the people believe that Sunday > is the sabbath and that the sabbath is the seventh day. I'm quite familiar with calendars that begin on Monday (ours always did when I was growing up), but are there really a lot of people who hold both those beliefs? How do they justify it? The gospels seem pretty clear: Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre. [Matt. 28:1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, brought spices, so that they might go and anount him. And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen. [Mark 16:1-2] But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared. [Luke 24:1] Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. [John 20:1] SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ Still with HP Labs |Reality is that which, when you SF Bay Area (1982-) |stop believing in it, doesn't go Chicago (1964-1982) |away. | evan.kirshenbaum@gmail.com | Philip K. Dick http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> Robert Bannister <robban1 bigpond.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > hold both those beliefs? How do they justify it? The gospels seem > pretty clear: [examples snipped] I thought all Christians believed that, although their holy day had been moved to Sunday for convenience [1], Saturday had always been the historical Sabbath. That, at least, is the impression I got from being raised as a Catholic. [1] Or, if not for convenience, from a belief that it would be appropriate to choose the first day of the week as the holy day. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >I thought all Christians believed that, although their holy day had been >moved to Sunday for convenience [1], Saturday had always been the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >[1] Or, if not for convenience, from a belief that it would be >appropriate to choose the first day of the week as the holy day. Calvinists, however, believe that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, and so I ascribe the growing practice of selling diaries with Monday as the first day of the week to Calvinist influence (I first noticed it in the Netherlands in the 1960s, when it was unknown elsewhere). In the Orthodox Church Saturday is regarded as the Sabbath, and is called "Subotta" in Russian. Sunday was used for worship as the celebrattion of Christ's resurrection (even in the atheist period in Russia, it was still called Voskresene). Again, in the Orthodox Church, Sunday is regarded as simultaneously the first and the eighth day -- the symbolism of the latter being that it lies beyond the week, outside ordinary time, and thus symbolises eternity. SignatureSteve 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 >>>> Some calendars use Monday as the first day and others Sunday. >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been > taken away from the tomb. [John 20:1] But the Sabbath was Saturday, the day of rest. Sunday was the beginning of the working week. Most Christians and many non-Christians now consider Sunday to be a day off work too, so Monday is the beginning of the working week, and what other, more important meaning of "week" is there than "working week"? People who tell me their week begins on Sunday and then just lounge around with perhaps a visit to church make me laugh - they are not beginning anything, but rather finishing the previous week. SignatureRobert Bannister Robert Bannister filted: >But the Sabbath was Saturday, the day of rest. Sunday was the beginning >of the working week. Most Christians and many non-Christians now [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >me laugh - they are not beginning anything, but rather finishing the >previous week. The term "weekend" all but requires you to count from Sunday to Saturday...how many things are there that have both ends at the same -- er -- end?...r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. > Robert Bannister filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The term "weekend" all but requires you to count from Sunday to Saturday...how > many things are there that have both ends at the same -- er -- end?...r Until recently, most people worked on a Saturday, at least in the morning, so Saturday afternoon or evening was the beginning of the "weekend". SignatureRobert Bannister >> [ ... ] > But the Sabbath was Saturday, the day of rest. Sunday was the beginning > of the working week. Most Christians and many non-Christians now [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > me laugh - they are not beginning anything, but rather finishing the > previous week. On the other hand "weekbeginning" doesn't sound as catchy as "weekend" and wouldn't have much chance of being adopted into languages around the world more or less unchanged. Signatureathel >>>> Some calendars use Monday as the first day and others Sunday. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > did when I was growing up), but are there really a lot of people who > hold both those beliefs? Maybe John Varela was trying a clever way of pointing out that "some" is *nowhere and never* equal to "every calendar". I challenge readers to name *any* country where "the people believe that Sunday is the sabbath" (not that Sunday is a non-work or a holy day, note, but that it is, specifically, the sabbath) and cite the evidence for that. I'd be interested to learn that such a country exists. >Maybe John Varela was trying a clever way of pointing out that "some" is >*nowhere and never* equal to "every calendar". I challenge readers to >name *any* country where "the people believe that Sunday is the sabbath" >(not that Sunday is a non-work or a holy day, note, but that it is, >specifically, the sabbath) and cite the evidence for that. I'd be >interested to learn that such a country exists. Scotland. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://khanya.wordpress.com Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com "She believed in nothing. Only her scepticism kept her from being an atheist." -- Jean-Paul Sartre AUE only. Steve Hayes: > [Jonathan de Boyne Pollard:] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Scotland. In particular the Outer Hebrides. I'm sure a lot of other people believe Sunday is the Sabbath - I was brought up to believe so - but don't observe it as they do in Lewis and Harris. Compton Mackenzie took a humorous look at the strict Sabbatarianism of the Western Isles in _Whisky Galore_. The Protestants of Great Todday were not willing to break the Sabbath to salvage the ship's cargo of whisky but were anguished by the thought that the Roman Catholics of Little Todday were encouraged to do so "by the tenets of their religion". SignatureJohn > AUE only. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > brought up to believe so - but don't observe it as they do in Lewis > and Harris. There is a list of days of the week ij many languages at http://www.omniglot.com/language/time/days.htm This gives the Gaelic for Sunday as Didòmhnaich Là na Sàbaid, which clearly agree with your contention. Other countries that follow the same convention appear to be Poland and Russia, which have words for Thursday and Friday that are clearly derived from the words for 4 and 5. Thursday looks pretty clear in Czech, Croat and some others as well, to you need the eye of faith for Friday. My Latvian is limited but doubtless Skitt can tell us whether (as it seems to me) that its days for Wednesday-Saturday are based on those for 3 to 6. Likewise Lithuanian. On the other hand, church Latin says that Monday is Secunda feria, and this is followed in Portuguese and Greek. So it seems that both conventions are found around Europe. Signatureathel Athel Cornish-Bowden: > http://www.omniglot.com/language/time/days.htm > > This gives the Gaelic for Sunday as Didòmhnaich Là na Sàbaid, which > clearly agree with your contention. "Didòmhnaich" is the usual name for the day of the week. MacBain's etymological dictionary says "dòmhnaich" comes from Latin "dominus" meaning "lord": http://www.ceantar.org/Dicts/MB2/mb13.html#Di- SignatureJohn >> Maybe John Varela was trying a clever way of pointing out that "some" is >> *nowhere and never* equal to "every calendar". I challenge readers to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Scotland. You haven't met the challenge. Indeed, if you look at the history you'll find that Christian churches in Scotland have a long and venerable history (prior, at least, to the reign of Queen Margaret in the 11th century) of observing the sabbath on Saturday *and treating Sunday as a normal work day* -- quite the opposite of what you are, without evidence, asserting. There have been all sorts of conflicts over this down the centuries in Scotland since the 11th century, and it is quite false to assert that "the people believe that Sunday is the sabbath" in Scotland, not least because it is clear from a long and turbulent history that "the people" don't have anywhere near a uniform view on the whole issue. >>> Maybe John Varela was trying a clever way of pointing out that "some" is >>> *nowhere and never* equal to "every calendar". I challenge readers to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >turbulent history that "the people" don't have anywhere near a uniform >view on the whole issue. As I said elsewhere in this thread (in aue, before it got crossposted to other ngs) it seems to be primarily a Calvinist thing to regard Sunday as the Sabbath, and I speculated that that might we why the practice of printing diaries with Monday as the first day of the week seems to have begun in the Netherlands -- at least that is where I first noticed it in the 1960s -- and it seems to have spread from there since then, so that now it is difficult to find a printed diary that begins the week on Sunday. Scotland was also greatly influenced by Calvinism, and many Scottish Calvinists regard Sunday and the Sabbath as synonyms, or they used to. See: http://www.westminsterconfession.org/identity/observance-of-the-sabbath.php SignatureSteve 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 In sci.astro message <IU.D20110809.T143309.P13375.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard. localhost>, Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:32:15, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> posted: > I challenge readers to name *any* country where "the people believe >that Sunday is the sabbath" (not that Sunday is a non-work or a holy >day, note, but that it is, specifically, the sabbath) and cite the >evidence for that. I'd be interested to learn that such a country >exists. In Stato della Città del Vaticano there is probably little doubt on the matter expressed by the citizens. It may also be the country with the greatest length of railway track per female citizen. Signature(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05. Website <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc. > In sci.astro message <IU.D20110809.T143309.P13375.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard. > localhost>, Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:32:15, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In Stato della Città del Vaticano there is probably little doubt on the > matter expressed by the citizens. I'm not sure which side you are on here! As the Vatican uses church Latin as iits official language I imagine that calling Monday "Secunda feria" gives a pretty clear idea on which side its citizens lie. > It may also be the country with the > greatest length of railway track per female citizen. I wonder. Don't any of the nuns who live there ever travel on a Vatican passport? It is also (I read yesterday on the web) one of the only two countries (the other being Taiwan) that are not subject t o international rules about flying safety. Signatureathel >> In sci.astro message <IU.D20110809.T143309.P13375.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard. >> localhost>, Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:32:15, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I wonder. Don't any of the nuns who live there ever travel on a Vatican > passport? Apparently there's a small handful of nuns who live there - I didn't know that until a few minutes ago - but I think most women who work there aren't citizens, and have to leave the country every night. > It is also (I read yesterday on the web) one of the only two countries > (the other being Taiwan) that are not subject t o international rules > about flying safety. That must be convenient for the flying nun, who would probably be illegal anywhere else. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> In sci.astro message >>> <IU.D20110809.T143309.P13375.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard. localhost>, Tue, 9 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > know that until a few minutes ago - but I think most women who work > there aren't citizens, and have to leave the country every night. Apparently the nuns are not citizens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#Citizenship SignatureDave Hatunen: Free Baja Arizona > Dr J R Stockton said: >> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard posted: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "Secunda feria" gives a pretty clear idea on which side its > citizens lie. So the Vatican is on side for a Saturday Sabbath, right? "Feria" is "holiday, festival, day of rest", and "secunda" originally meant "following". It governed the ablative, so the Church Latin is probably short for "(dies) secunda feriâ", the day following the day of rest. The next one, with inexorable logic, must be "(dies) tertia feriâ", and so on in order until you get to the weekend, AKA "sabbatum" and "dies dominica". [nuns on the move] > Every calendar I have seen in the United States starts on Sunday. From which statement we can deduce that (a) Mrs Doe is in the United States but simply hasn't seen all that many different calendars, or (b) Mrs Doe has seen calendars not starting the week with Sunday but didn't see them in the United States, or (c) Mrs Doe isn't in the United States in the first place and has seen zero calendars there. > >> Cheryl<cperkins mun.ca>: > >>>> Andrew Usher<k_over_hbarc yahoo.com>: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > What on earth is that supposed to mean? Some calendars use Monday as the > first day and others Sunday. It means he's an ignoramus and we should all just killfile him. SignatureJohn Varela > Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: > >And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that is an > >incontrovertible fact. > > Crap. OK, it's a crap fact (?). Andrew Usher Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: >> Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: >> >And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that is an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >OK, it's a crap fact (?). It's also a fact that no fact is incontrovertible. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >>> 6. This is surely the best possible arrangement that can be made, >>> without disturbing the cycle of weeks or that of calendar days [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Having 13 months, in addition, would screw up a bunch of things ; in > particular, 13 can't be divided. But you hate decimal! /BAH >>> 6. This is surely the best possible arrangement that can be made, >>> without disturbing the cycle of weeks or that of calendar days [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that is an > incontrovertible fact. Oh dear. I had thought that you weren't a crank up till now. > Having 13 months, in addition, would screw up a bunch of things ; in > particular, 13 can't be divided. Why is that so important? Why is not having days outside the week important? I seem to have lost the point of having a calendar change. SignatureRob Bannister On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:15:36 +0800, Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in <news:7ue45oF7eoU6@mid.individual.net> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > Why is not having days outside the week important? [...] On that one he actually has a case: many adherents of three major religions would object strenuously to anything that broke the seven-day cycle. Brian [Trimmed to AUE] > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:15:36 +0800, Robert Bannister > <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > major religions would object strenuously to anything that > broke the seven-day cycle. The Jews in the United States have lived quite contentedly in countries where the standard secular calendar is the one used for all purposes other than those specific to the Jewish religion. Even in Israel, they conduct business in the year 2010, though it's 2010 C..E., not A.D. 2010. So if the adherents of various religions want to preserve the seven-day cycle for their religions purposes, let them. Okay, it'll be a bit difficult celebrating Shabbat on secular Wednesdays for a full year, but if that's what religion compels, go for it. It's obvious that doing this will make it a bit awkward for employers whose Jewish employees, or at least some of them, are away from work for a full year of Mondays, followed by a full year of Tuesdays, and so on until the secular and religious days coincide again, but hey -- religion must be respected. And every seven years the secular and religious Saturday will coincide. We can call them "sabbatical years." Yeah, that's the ticket. I myself don't care very much one way or the other, but life would be a lot easier if we could adopt a secular calendar in which a given date fell on the same day of the week every year. Let those insistent on a seven-day cycle with no exceptions make their accommodations as best they can. Religion is the tail in this situation, not the dog. SignatureBob Lieblich Arf Robert Lieblich <r_s_lieblich@yahoo.com>: >I myself don't care very much one way or the other, but life would be >a lot easier if we could adopt a secular calendar in which a given >date fell on the same day of the week every year. Let those insistent >on a seven-day cycle with no exceptions make their accommodations as >best they can. Religion is the tail in this situation, not the dog. I don't think that any deviation from that simple seven-day cycle is going to happen any decade soon, nor should it. The regular seven-day week is such a practical concept that its loss would cause immeasurable damage to business and government. There's no need to bring the contentious topic of religious observance into it - pure practicality will win the day. I also regard the calendar's change from year to year not as a problem to be solved, but as a good thing. If, as some people suggest, the days of the week fell on the same dates each year, that would be one more mass of facts that children would be expected to learn in school. Think of it, as well as learning how many days there were in each month, they'd have to learn which day of the week every date in the calendar fell on. Our habit of quoting the day with the date would die out, because everyone would simply *know*. Then we'd lose the simple consistency check that we have at the moment, whereby it soon becomes apparent if you get any one of the day, date, month, and year slightly wrong. We should learn to appreciate the benefits of the system we have, before considering the apparent advantages of alternatives. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:05:02 -0500 from Robert Lieblich <r_s_lieblich@yahoo.com>: > The Jews in the United States have lived quite contentedly in > countries where the standard secular calendar is the one used for all > purposes other than those specific to the Jewish religion. Even in > Israel, they conduct business in the year 2010, though it's 2010 > C..E., not A.D. 2010. As it is for many non-Jews as well. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... Robert Bannister wrote (22-02-2010 01:15): >>>> 6. This is surely the best possible arrangement that can be made, >>>> without disturbing the cycle of weeks or that of calendar days [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Why is that so important? Why is not having days outside the week > important? I seem to have lost the point of having a calendar change. 1) It's ugly. 2) It's religiously unacceptable. Just use a 364-day year with a leap week. What's troublesome about that? how about a leap-fortnight, half as often? > Just use a 364-day year with a leap week. What's troublesome about that? thus: well, if Christopher Walken will only do weird/creepy but not bad, as I just read in teh Sunday NYTimes, then so can Bill Shatner; eh?... of course, the "bad" is in the denouement or resolution. (at the moment, HSJ is just letting me waste my time on him, which *might* be a good thing .-) as for interesting, it could be used as a vehicle to promulgate math, like the "purposefully mistaken calculus instructor," more or less (because, I hypothesize that it is really an alias for Obama, jerking us around for some reason). > Hmm. You'd need someone who can do humourless/irrational, while making thus: the only comment is that "the quaternion people" did not "do" any thing "to the scalar;" Gibbs took quaternions apart into two operations, using all of the nomenclature (and not adding any, I think), except for "imaginaries." thus: well, if the microphone is your ear, then it is commonplace observation; two ears, you can even locate the emmitter, immediately. so, what is the *same* about the waves & the particles? thus: NCLB/Come the Rapture; won't matter about Babel-on! > What's the "No Child Left Behind" *Alphabet*? thus: vous etes tres pathetique, monsieur Valev. comme-ca, quelle es problematique avec <<dilation doo temps>> -- faites-vous supposez, cette est le meme chose a journe' <<een>> temps? > http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/gdes_theories/einstein.html > "Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > petite , et sont champ de gravitation est plus fort que ne le pensait > Eddington." --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com --Stop Cheeny and Rice's 3rd British (ICC) Invasion of Sudan! http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice-ists_sudan.html > how about a leap-fortnight, half as often? > > Just use a 364-day year with a leap week. What's troublesome about that? I never thought about it that way, but come to think of it, the calendar that Usher describes really is a "leap week" calendar in disguise. To answer the question, "what's troublesome about that?" it must be emphasized that the more changes there are to the standard calendar, the less likely it would actually be implemented. Of course, it's unlikely that any calendar change would be implemented at all, but still, slight changes to the current leap year rule are more likely to be implemented than changing to a full leap week calendar. More radical changes, such as switching to 13-month years, are even less likely to be implemented than either type of calendar. As I mentioned earlier, the Usher calendar contains three leap weeks every 17 years. The following two links describe the accuracy of leap week calendars in general: http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/lweek1.htm http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/leap/index.htm The first link describes the Usher leap week rule: Years Leap weeks Mean Year 17 3 365.2353 but later on the page, it mentions: Years Leap weeks Mean Year 986 175 365.242394 17yr cycle corrected by extra leapweek In other words, the Usher 17-year cycle will be off by one week in 986 years, and would need to be corrected by an extra leap week. This is fairly accurate for now. I'm not sure how one would insert that extra leap week into Usher's calendar, but then again, we'd have 986 years in order to figure it out... According to the second link, the corrected 986-year cycle gives a mean year of only about three seconds longer than the mean vernal equinox year. To answer spudnik's question: > how about a leap-fortnight, half as often? The only problem with having a leap fortnight in the Usher calendar is that it would extend the possible dates of Christmas to a fortnight. We'd have to have a range of either December 14th-27th, or December 21st-January 3rd. It's already awkward enough in the Usher calendar to celebrate Christmas on any day other than December 25th, so to have Christmas on December 14th or January 3rd would be awkward even more. > > > Just use a 364-day year with a leap week. What's troublesome about that? > > I never thought about it that way, but come to think of it, > the calendar that Usher describes really is a "leap week" > calendar in disguise. It could be understood as a leap week calendar that retains the traditional months and dates, yes. > To answer the question, "what's > troublesome about that?" it must be emphasized that the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > switching to 13-month years, are even less likely to be > implemented than either type of calendar. That's what I thought. My adjustments retain all the familiarity with the calendar that people have now, excepting the date of Christmas. > As I mentioned earlier, the Usher calendar contains three > leap weeks every 17 years. I have revised my rule (see my other reply to you) to 22 leap weeks every 124 years. This gives 365.2419 days/year, which is perfect. I intentionally want the year to be a bit short, keeping the calendar accurate for a longer time, as due to the Earth's slowing rotation the year loses 0.0001 day every one or two millennia. Andrew Usher >>>> Just use a 364-day year with a leap week. What's troublesome about that? >> I never thought about it that way, but come to think of it, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > accurate for a longer time, as due to the Earth's slowing rotation the > year loses 0.0001 day every one or two millennia. How are you going to calculate interest? /BAH > > how about a leap-fortnight, half as often? > > > Just use a 364-day year with a leap week. What's troublesome about that? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > rule are more likely to be implemented than changing to a > full leap week calendar. ... I just dropped by rasfw, where people had discussed a different proposal: http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/symmetry.htm Andrew Plotkin remarked, "I realize that's not the point, and bringing up practical objections to utopian calendrical reforms is like closing the barn door before the potted geraniums can escape." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/browse_frm/thread/030532c10ae 96f24/0dccbd7f8cffe391?lnk=raot#0dccbd7f8cffe391 -- Jerry Friedman thought it was funny. > I just dropped by rasfw, where people had discussed a different > proposal: > > http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/symmetry.htm I would object to this because of the huge variation in month lengths. This is not only against the original purpose of months, but against the modern use of them as financial periods. Also, he has weeks starting on Monday, which I of course find unacceptable. Having a similar proposal with Sunday would make every month have Friday the 13th, which would hopefully get rid of that ridiculous superstitious concept. Andrew Usher > > I just dropped by rasfw, where people had discussed a different > > proposal: > >http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/symmetry.htm > I would object to this because of the huge variation in month lengths. > This is not only against the original purpose of months, but against > the modern use of them as financial periods. Notice that the author of the Sym454 calendar also has a Sym010 variant, in which months have 30-31 days. This addresses Usher's first objection: http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/classic.htm > Also, he has weeks starting on Monday, which I of course find > unacceptable. Having a similar proposal with Sunday would make every > month have Friday the 13th, which would hopefully get rid of that > ridiculous superstitious concept. A Sym010 variant with weeks starting on Sunday would result in only four Fridays the 13th each year (falling in January, April, July, and October). BTW, the author of the Sym454 and Sym010 calendars also wrote the second link I gave earlier in this thread, which was a comparison of various leap year rules (including the 62-year cycle, equivalent to half of Usher's 124-year cycle). >> I just dropped by rasfw, where people had discussed a different >> proposal: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >This is not only against the original purpose of months, but against >the modern use of them as financial periods. How about the French revolution calendar? Per wikipedia: Calendar design Years appear in writing as Roman numerals (usually), with epoch 22 September 1792, the beginning of the 'Republican Era' (the day the French First Republic was proclaimed, one day after the Convention abolished the monarchy). As a result, Roman Numeral I indicates the first year of the republic, that is, the year before the calendar actually came into use. The first day of each year was that of the autumnal equinox. There were twelve months, each divided into three ten-day weeks called décades. The tenth day, décadi, replaced Sunday as the day of rest and festivity. The five or six extra days needed to approximate the solar or tropical year were placed after the months at the end of each year. A period of four years ending on a leap day was to be called a "Franciade." The name "Olympique" was originally proposed[4] but changed to Franciade to commemorate the fact that it had taken the revolution four years to establish a republican government in France.[5] The leap year was called Sextile, an allusion to the "bissextile" leap years of the Julian and Gregorian calendars, because it contained a sixth complementary day. Decimal time Each day in the Republican Calendar was divided into ten hours, each hour into 100 decimal minutes, and each decimal minute into 100 decimal seconds. Thus an hour was 144 conventional minutes (more than twice as long as a conventional hour), a minute was 86.4 conventional seconds (slightly longer than a conventional minute), and a second was 0.864 conventional seconds (slightly shorter than a conventional second). Clocks were manufactured to display this decimal time, but it did not catch on. Mandatory use of decimal time was officially suspended 7 April 1795, although some cities continued to use decimal time as late as 1801.[6] Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Androcles wrote: >> In article <%GIfn.45264$lB6.23443@newsfe16.ams2>, "Androcles" >> <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_u> writes: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > : a shortening of a word, syllable, or word group by omission of a > sound or letter; Like most of what you write, this is false as it stands. The 'his' genitive did indeed have a short vogue in English around 1600, though probably only in writing and as a folk etymology, not in the spoken language. The apostrophe s spelling in place of etymological '-es' may indeed have originated from the false belief that 'his' was the original form; it would have then spread to the other genders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_genitive Constructions similar to the 'his' genitive do exist in many of the world's languages, including Norwegian and, I understand, some German varieties. In Afrikaans, it's the standard possessive construction. John. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_genitive > > Constructions similar to the 'his' genitive do exist in many of the > world's languages, including Norwegian and, I understand, some German > varieties. In Afrikaans, it's the standard possessive construction. That's why I called it a common Germanic feature. Andrew Usher > Androcles wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > genitive did indeed have a short vogue in English around 1600, though > probably Oh, we have a probable arsehole. Everything you write is probably a load of crap. *plonk* Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated; you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive, unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread. Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are left to decide which is most applicable to you. There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill- filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the same spot and repeat the process eternally. This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry or crackpot theories without challenge. You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I purchase a new computer or hard drive. Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been restored to the list. I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you. I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't, damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and f.ck off. > I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose > of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits I suspect that it may be more successful than you know. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Algebra? But that's far too 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |difficult for seven-year-olds!" Palo Alto, CA 94304 | |"Yes, but I didn't tell them that kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |and so far they haven't found out," (650)857-7572 |said Susan. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose >> of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits > > I suspect that it may be more successful than you know. LOL, and yes. SignatureAnd remember, while you're out there risking your life and limb through shot and shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a sucker you are. [Rufus T. Firefly] [NGs trimmed] >>> I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose >>> of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits >> I suspect that it may be more successful than you know. > > LOL, and yes. LOL and AOL. SignatureJames > Androcles wrote: >> "Michael Stemper's blunder" is a contraction of "Michael Stemper, his >> blunder". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_genitive Hmm. I'm not sure where to look this up, but I have the strong impression that the spoken -s form entered English before the (brief) appearance of the 'his' genitive. Indeed, the false belief you mention probably could not have arisen before some version of the apostrophe s, whether or not the apostrophe was actually used at the time. At some stage, the pronunciation of the -es genitive ending changed. The above-cited Wiki article suggests that it was being pronounced -is prior to the rise of the 'his' genitive. At a later stage - I don't know when - it must have become an unstressed schwa, and a little later English speakers stopped pronouncing the vowel, so the -es became a simple -s. That is, it became so in speech. Spelling tends to lag behind spoken changes, so the -es would still have been there in the consciousness of writers ... except that eventually the writers started putting in apostrophes to indicate letters that weren't pronounced. I'm quite convinced that today's "possessive apostrophe" is, historically, simply a "missing letter" apostrophe. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> Androcles wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > convinced that today's "possessive apostrophe" is, historically, simply > a "missing letter" apostrophe. Some Americans misspell "congratulations" as "congradulations" because they mispronounce the t as d and also attempt a pun on "graduate". http://tinyurl.com/yksk3lg They also pronounce "route" to rhyme with out and about instead of root and toot, because it is spelt with ou. Nor do they consider "spelt" to be correct, insisting it should be "spelled". Spelling tends to lead ahead of spoken changes, firstly with accent and then with dialect. Whaddaya say to that? Wot, watt, what? And w is literally a double u, as in "Cwm", for those that live in Old South Wales and speak the language of the Cymru. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales There was no w or u in Latin (or g, j or y), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet the language of Roman Britain. If you want to sort out -es, look to "Wednesday"; Celtic gods predate the Roman invasion and Xtianity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wotan Keep in mind that Britain was invaded many times prior to 1066, 1600 doesn't count for diddly-squat. England was a melting pot long before the USA became one. On Feb 25, 10:09 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > >> Androcles wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > spoken changes, firstly with accent and then with dialect. Whaddaya say to > that? Wot, watt, what? It is utterly untrue and without foundation. > And w is literally a double u, as in "Cwm", for those that live in Old South > Wales and speak the language of the Cymru. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales > There was no w or u in Latin (or g, j or y), > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet My god, you're ignorant. Never even heard of Gaius Julius Caesar? > the language of Roman Britain. > If you want to sort out -es, look to "Wednesday"; Celtic gods predate the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > doesn't count for diddly-squat. England was a melting pot long before > the USA became one.- You make yourself look stupider and stupider by continuing to post utter nonsense about language to sci.lang. Peter T. Daniels schrieb: > On Feb 25, 10:09 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_u> > wrote: [snoop] > You make yourself look stupider and stupider by continuing to post > utter nonsense about language to sci.lang. Whereas you make yourself look even *more* stupider, by always managing to drag your babbling shite in sci.math. You are like an annoying floating turd that doesn't go away and doesn't know when to shut the f.ck up. Now kindly f.ck off. > Peter T. Daniels schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Now kindly f.ck off. Thanks... I'd tell him myself but the stooopid c.nt is too stupid to know he's been plonked. > Peter T. Daniels schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You are like an annoying floating turd that doesn't go away and > doesn't know when to shut the f.ck up. Do you often have trouble getting yours to pipe down? > Now kindly f.ck off. Followups restricted to AUE and SL. > Robert Bannister wrote (22-02-2010 01:15): >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Just use a 364-day year with a leap week. What's troublesome about that? I have no problems with that either. I also don't understand why the other way would be religiously unacceptable. SignatureRob Bannister > > Once again, I said that I excluded having days outside the week. And > > the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that is an > > incontrovertible fact. > > Oh dear. I had thought that you weren't a crank up till now. Right. So now believing what has been held for over two millennia makes one a crank. All hail ISO, our new overlords! > > Having 13 months, in addition, would screw up a bunch of things ; in > > particular, 13 can't be divided. > > Why is that so important? Why is not having days outside the week > important? I seem to have lost the point of having a calendar change. Don't people use halves, thirds, and quarters of the year? Andrew Usher Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: >> > Once again, I said that I excluded having days outside the week. And >> > the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that is an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Right. So now believing what has been held for over two millennia >makes one a crank. Wrong. It's not believing that the first day of the week is a Sunday that makes you a crank. What makes you a crank is writing that it's an incontrovertible fact. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Wrong. It's not believing that the first day of the week is a Sunday > that makes you a crank. > > What makes you a crank is writing that it's an incontrovertible fact. Isn't that a tautology though? If one believes something, one believes it to be true. Andrew Usher > > Wrong. It's not believing that the first day of the week is a Sunday > > that makes you a crank. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Isn't that a tautology though? If one believes something, one believes > it to be true. Is it the word "fact" or the word "believe" that you don't understand? ("Incontrovertible" is just window-dressing.) Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: >> Wrong. It's not believing that the first day of the week is a Sunday >> that makes you a crank. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Isn't that a tautology though? If one believes something, one believes >it to be true. It's not a matter of true or false. The start of the week is a perception, not a fact. Different people have different perceptions. If you appear not to recognise this, you risk being thought a crank. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > It's not a matter of true or false. The start of the week is a > perception, not a fact. Different people have different perceptions. If > you appear not to recognise this, you risk being thought a crank. You can define the week any way you want, but the historical seven-day week begins on Sunday. If you use Monday, you are defining a different week. Andrew Usher In sci.physics Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote: >> It's not a matter of true or false. The start of the week is a >> perception, not a fact. Different people have different perceptions. If >> you appear not to recognise this, you risk being thought a crank. > > You can define the week any way you want, but the historical seven-day > week begins on Sunday. In some cultures, not all. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:22:07 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in <news:b0ea53eb-270f-4efa-ae7f-41a30076c48c@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > You can define the week any way you want, but the > historical seven-day week begins on Sunday. [...] *A* historical seven-day week begins on Sunday; another historical seven-day week begins on Monday. Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: >> It's not a matter of true or false. The start of the week is a >> perception, not a fact. Different people have different perceptions. If >> you appear not to recognise this, you risk being thought a crank. > >You can define the week any way you want, but the historical seven-day >week begins on Sunday. Not everywhere. >If you use Monday, you are defining a different >week. No, using is not the same as defining. There's no sense of exclusion of alternatives. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com>: >>You can define the week any way you want, but the historical >>seven-day week begins on Sunday. > > Not everywhere. I'd say that the *historical* seven-day week began on Sunday. Or are there modern seven-day weeks that don't go back to the Jewish "on the seventh day he rested" week? Wikipedia lists a whole bunch of weeks of different lengths, ranging from three days to thirteen days (the Romans used eight, the Chinese ten), but the seven-day weeks all appear to have been borrowed (ultimately) from the same source. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There's been so much ado already 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that any further ado would be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |excessive. | Lori Karkosky kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Having 13 months, in addition, would screw up a bunch of things ; in > particular, 13 can't be divided. Of course it can be. It's evenly divisible by 13 and by 1. It's also (not evenly) divisible by any non-zero real number that you care to think of, and also by numbers that you can only imagine. On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:41:54 +0000, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> wrote in <news:IU.D20100305.T154207.P9507.Q2@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost> in sci.math,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> Having 13 months, in addition, would screw up a bunch of things ; in >> particular, 13 can't be divided. > Of course it can be. It's evenly divisible by 13 and by 1. It's also > (not evenly) divisible by any non-zero real number that you care to > think of, and also by numbers that you can only imagine. I just thought of 6.5 ... Brian > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:41:54 +0000, Jonathan de Boyne > Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I just thought of 6.5 ... > Brian And that ought to be fine even for the Pythagorians amongst us. pjk >> If you are going to try to make it sensible, then please give us 13 >> four-week months with one or two specially named days at the end of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Having 13 months, in addition, would screw up a bunch of things ; in > particular, 13 can't be divided. Many financial systems have a 13th month (well, usually called "period 13") every year for year-end closing transactions. Sometimes it even has a day in the calendar, and using it can be interesting... It has been noted that we have received a couple of journal entries with a December 31 effective date. This is a reminder that using that date will post the journal entry to Period 13. Period 13 is reserved for business unit collapsing entries and Corporate year end entries. http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Nobody-Does-Business-on-December-31st!.aspx SignatureI worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my daughter] will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?' [Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/ ] Andrew Usher set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > 3. That the leap year rule be changed to have a leap year occur every > fourth save that it be delayed when the leap year would start on a > Thursday, and that this gives 7 leap years in every 29, which is near > enough. 7/29 amounts to 0.2413 of an extra day on average. We're looking for 0.2422. The Gregorian calendar says 97/400 (0.2425) which is more accurate, the Revised Julian Calendar says 218/900 (0.24222 recurring) [1] which is more accurate again. [1] The RJC says that century years are not leap years unless they leave a remainder of 2 or 6 when divided by 9. Thus in a 4*225 = 900-year cycle seven leap-years are omitted. The RJC is currently in sync with the Gregorian, and will not diverge therefrom until 2800. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > Andrew Usher set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > continuum: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Revised Julian Calendar says 218/900 (0.24222 recurring) [1] which is more > accurate again. 7/29 IS close enough when you consider the slowing of Earth's rotation. However, it's wrong; the leap year procedure I gave does not give 7 in 29 years, since that is not a whole number of weeks. Andrew Usher > Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, > and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I > say the following: The notion of calendar reform has appeared on sci.math from time to time. Some people may argue that the debate between those who defend the standard Gregorian calendar and those who wish to reform it is analogous to the debate between the standard set theorists and the so-called "cranks." I'd argue that calendar reform would fit Underwood Dudley's "eccentric" category more than the "crank" category. But then again, the OP of this thread (Andrew Usher) has already been considered a "crank" due to his views on the standard ZFC set theory. Compared to some calendar reformer's proposal's, Usher's is relatively tame. He only proposes a new leap year rule and new dates for the Christian holidays, as opposed to more radical proposals (such as the 13-month calendar proposal mentioned later in this thread). > 1. That Christmas day should be fixed to a Sunday, and this should be > the Sunday between Dec. 21 and 27, and that in all civilised countries > the Monday should be considered a holiday, or the Saturday if not > normally. On one hand, the notion of Christmas always falling on a Sunday sounds appealing, since it's the Christian sabbath (and thus Christians are already in church anyway). Some of the previous calendar reformers have also proposed having Christmas always fall on a Sunday, since, as Usher points out, it allows the holiday to fall on a three-day weekend and prevents workers from wanting to take extra days off when Christmas is mid-week. On the other hand, some workers are going to take off extra days anyway. According to a certain game show (the second time I've referenced game shows in an Usher thread), Christmas (and not Thanksgiving as some may believe) is the most heavily traveled holiday in the USA. Travelers are often forced to leave several days before Christmas because the airlines are booked on the days closer to the holiday. In years in which Christmas is mid-week, the workers are likely to take those extra days off anyway, but when Christmas is on a Sunday as per Usher's proposal, workers don't necessarily wait until Friday, December 23rd at 5PM to begin their holiday travel. So workers may be as likely to take off extra days under Usher's proposal as they are under the current Gregorian calendar. (Also, Sunday Christmases often cause headaches for school calendar planners as well. Some schools actually have school all the way up until Friday, December 23rd, and then have low attendance rates the last few days. One could have school end a full week before Christmas instead, but then the standard two-week winter break might end too close to New Year's Day, or even before, since a December 21st Usher Christmas would result in school resuming on Monday, December 29th, which is before New Year's Day.) Therefore I'm of two minds regarding the Usher Christmas Day. > 2. That similarly Easter day should be fixed to the Sunday which is 15 > weeks following Christmas. Many schools and universities no longer tie their spring break holidays to Easter since it floats so much. They often prefer a break at a fixed point in the spring semester. Therefore, I agree with the Usher Easter more than the Usher Christmas. > 3. That the leap year rule be changed to have a leap year occur every > fourth save that it be delayed when the leap year would start on a > Thursday, and that this gives 7 leap years in every 29, which is near > enough. There's a huge problem with the Usher leap year plan here. I can see why Usher would want to avoid leap years starting on Thursdays, since Easter, being 15 weeks after Christmas, would fall on April 4th such years, which is outside of the April 5-11 range given by Usher elsewhere in this thread. But suppose the Usher plan had been implemented in 2004, which was the last time a leap year started on Thursday. Thus the Usher leap year would have been 2005 instead. Now let's look at a table of Usher New Year's Days and leap years: 2004: Thursday 2005: Friday (leap year) 2006: Sunday 2007: Monday 2008: Tuesday 2009: Wednesday (leap year) 2010: Friday 2011: Saturday 2012: Sunday 2013: Monday (leap year) 2014: Wednesday 2015: Thursday 2016: Friday 2017: Saturday (leap year) 2018: Monday 2019: Tuesday 2020: Wednesday 2021: Thursday (common year) 2022: Friday (leap year) 2023: Sunday And now we see the problem. The resulting leap year cycle isn't 7 leap years in 29 years, but rather 4 leap years in only 17 years. This is because by skipping Thursday leap years, Usher unwittingly skipped Tuesday and Sunday leap years as well! And so the resulting mean year length is only 365+4/17 = 365.2352941 days, which is less accurate than the Gregorian leap year rule. The idea of having occasional five-year periods between leap year's isn't new. Wikipedia mentions the Jalaali calendar, billed as the most accurate solar calendar in the world, which has 8 leap years in 33 years, giving a mean year length of 365+8/33=365.2424... years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_calendar > 4. That the perpetual calendar can be made, by considering the first > day of the year of weeks to occur on the Sunday after the Assumption, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > week, in particular the American Thanksgiving must be made 31 days > before Christmas. There is already a similar week-numbering scheme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_week_date Of course, the ISO week 1 occurs near New Year's Day, which is unacceptable to Usher since he wants to avoid starting the count during his 15 weeks between Christmas and Easter. So he chose a different starting point. Also, the ISO weeks start on Monday whereas Usher weeks start of Sunday (but this was discussed by others elsewhere in the thread). Notice that the current USA Labor Day (first Monday in September) already occurs exactly 11 weeks and three days before Usher Thanksgiving. As Usher points out later, this is convenient for college football, which traditionally began on Labor Day weekend and ended on Thanksgiving, with enough time to play 11 games in between. (The recent practice of playing 12 games instead of 11 occurred because in a recent year when Labor Day and Thanksgiving were 12 weeks and three days apart, colleges scheduled an extra game, then kept on scheduling 12 games even when the period between the two holidays switched back to 11 weeks and three days.) Also, the current USA Memorial Day (last Monday in May) already occurs exactly seven weeks and one day after the Usher Easter. In other words, it's always Whit Monday. (For those who are tired of all these USA holiday references, note that the UK Spring Bank Holiday occurs on the same day as USA Memorial Day, while the UK Summer Bank Holiday occurs exactly one week before USA Labor Day.) > 6. This is surely the best possible arrangement that can be made, > without disturbing the cycle of weeks or that of calendar days > inherited from the Romans. I'm not sure whether this is the best possible calendar, but it's certainly an interesting proposal. Transfer Principle filted: >The notion of calendar reform has appeared on sci.math from time >to time. Some people may argue that the debate between those who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >reform would fit Underwood Dudley's "eccentric" category more >than the "crank" category. If you want a crank, find the person who came up with Daylight Saving Time.... Then find his successor who decided that DST should apply for more of the year than "Standard" time....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > Transfer Principle filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Then find his successor who decided that DST should apply for more of the year > than "Standard" time....r And if they are still alive, feed them to the pigs, slowly. [...] > If you want a crank, find the person who came up with > Daylight Saving Time.... > Then find his successor who decided that DST should apply > for more of the year than "Standard" time....r I like DST; my only objection is that we don't have it all year round. Brian Brian M. Scott wrote (22-02-2010 21:33): > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I like DST; my only objection is that we don't have it all year round. Yeah, what sense does it make to save daylight only during half of the year. > Brian M. Scott wrote (22-02-2010 21:33): > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yeah, what sense does it make to save daylight only during half of the year. It's called the law of diminishing returns. > Brian M. Scott wrote (22-02-2010 21:33): >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Yeah, what sense does it make to save daylight only during half of the > year. What I want to know is what do they do with all this daylight they've saved? I'm not getting it, and I think they're using my daylight for nefarious activities. SignatureRob Bannister >What I want to know is what do they do with all this daylight they've >saved? I'm not getting it, and I think they're using my daylight for >nefarious activities. Benjamin Franklin first proposed daylight time (it's not really called Daylight *Savings* Time anymore). I've hear it commented that daylight time was invented by an Amrican Indian who, finding his blanket too short to reach his chin, cut off the lower end of the blanket and sewed it onto the upper end. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:38:57 +0800, Robert Bannister > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Benjamin Franklin first proposed daylight time (it's not really > called Daylight *Savings* Time anymore). No he didn't, though that's a common myth. He proposed that Parisians wake up earlier to save candle wax (in a satirical commentary on their nightlife). Either George Vernon Hudson or William Willet deserves the credit or blame. > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:38:57 +0800, Robert Bannister > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * > * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * And your racial slurs? Is there a reason for attaching that story to a particular ethnicity? Doesn't just about every culture use blankets? On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:48:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:b635eda9-c279-4467-91f7-041a0adef830@g23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] >> I've hear it commented that daylight time was invented by >> an Amrican Indian who, finding his blanket too short to >> reach his chin, cut off the lower end of the blanket and >> sewed it onto the upper end. [...] > Is there a reason for attaching that story to a particular > ethnicity? [...] Quite possibly accuracy in reporting. Brian > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:48:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Quite possibly accuracy in reporting. So if it were told about "Ol' Uncle Tom," that would be "accuracy in reporting" too? >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:48:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > So if it were told about "Ol' Uncle Tom," that would be "accuracy in > reporting" too? If that's the way he heard it, sure. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |He seems to be perceptive and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |effective because he states the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |obvious to people that don't seem |to see the obvious. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | Tony Cooper http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:48:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > If that's the way he heard it, sure. But since we know it's a tall tale, we know that it is not "true" or "reportage." What the story tells us is that the most recent teller has a low opinion of American Indians, Irishmen, or (in my hypothetical), African Americans. Garrison Keillor (in the annual "joke show") for a while told "blonde" jokes rather than "Polish" jokes, and then "Iowan" jokes. (I'm not sure whether "Ole and Lena" jokes are a different subgenre, but that makes them into self-mockery, which is about the least offensive possible.) >> >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:48:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > has a low opinion of American Indians, Irishmen, or (in my > hypothetical), African Americans. What's "reportage" is the "I've heard it commented". If Dave, living in Arizona, has heard it told about Indians, then that's the tale he's reporting having heard. And the choice of ethnicity is an interesting part of the tale, giving insight into the attitudes of those who tell it (as distinct from those who merely report having heard it). SignatureEvan 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/ Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >> But since we know it's a tall tale, we know that it is not "true" or >> "reportage." What the story tells us is that the most recent teller [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >part of the tale, giving insight into the attitudes of those who tell >it (as distinct from those who merely report having heard it). Knowing some of these peoples, I can imagine the Apache telling such a tale about the Papago*, or the Navajo telling it about the Hopi....r * Yes, they're "Tohono O'odham" now, but in the world of the joke, the old politically incorrect terms continue to flourish.... Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >* Yes, they're "Tohono O'odham" now, but in the world of the joke, the old >politically incorrect terms continue to flourish.... Just to be fair here, I heard it when I was living in Ohio... Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >Evan Kirshenbaum filted: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Just to be fair here, I heard it when I was living in Ohio... So someone in Ohio thought it was more politically correct to insult American Indians than Hibernians. >> >Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >So someone in Ohio thought it was more politically correct to insult >American Indians than Hibernians. We had a lot more Hibernians than Amerinds... Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >> >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:48:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > >> >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > part of the tale, giving insight into the attitudes of those who tell > it (as distinct from those who merely report having heard it). So ... that Dave has a prejudice concerning American Indians is something he thought we all should know? > On Feb 24, 10:04 am, Evan Kirshenbaum > <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote: [...] >> What's "reportage" is the "I've heard it commented". >> If Dave, living in Arizona, has heard it told about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> those who tell it (as distinct from those who merely >> report having heard it). > So ... that Dave has a prejudice concerning American > Indians is something he thought we all should know? No. It's an asinine unjustified inference on your part. Brian > > On Feb 24, 10:04 am, Evan Kirshenbaum > > <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > No. It's an asinine unjustified inference on your part. So you think that telling racist, or sexist, or whatever, jokes doesn't reveal the teller's attitude toward the group mocked? Or is it that you have no problem with mocking groups? Or with negative attitude toward groups? >> > On Feb 24, 10:04 am, Evan Kirshenbaum >> > <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Or with negative attitude toward groups? Or is it that you can tell the difference between telling a joke and reporting having heard a joke and that you can recognize that by phrasing your reporting that way the reporter implicitly distances himself from the implication that he agrees with the way it's told? SignatureEvan 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/ On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:18:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:17448f65-e82a-4b67-b554-3896d58f496c@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> On Feb 24, 10:04 am, Evan Kirshenbaum >>> <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> [...] >>>> What's "reportage" is the "I've heard it commented". >>>> If Dave, living in Arizona, has heard it told about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> those who tell it (as distinct from those who merely >>>> report having heard it). >>> So ... that Dave has a prejudice concerning American >>> Indians is something he thought we all should know? >> No. It's an asinine unjustified inference on your part. > So you think that telling racist, or sexist, or whatever, jokes > doesn't reveal the teller's attitude toward the group mocked? In fact it sometimes does not. However, the question is irrelevant: see Evan's response. > Or is it that you have no problem with mocking groups? > Or with negative attitude toward groups? You're in a very poor position to cast those stones. > So you think that telling racist, or sexist, or whatever, jokes > doesn't reveal the teller's attitude toward the group mocked? > > Or is it that you have no problem with mocking groups? > > Or with negative attitude toward groups? You mean like Jews, autists, schizophrenics, "ditzy blondes", and Kibologists? SignatureDo you know what they do to book thieves up at Santa Rita? http://www.shigabooks.com/indeces/bookhunter.html >> So you think that telling racist, or sexist, or whatever, jokes >> doesn't reveal the teller's attitude toward the group mocked? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You mean like Jews, autists, schizophrenics, "ditzy blondes", and > Kibologists? You repeat yourself. --oTTo-- >>> So you think that telling racist, or sexist, or whatever, jokes >>> doesn't reveal the teller's attitude toward the group mocked? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You repeat yourself. Not as often as he does! SignatureI heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt] > >> So you think that telling racist, or sexist, or whatever, jokes > >> doesn't reveal the teller's attitude toward the group mocked? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You repeat yourself. Yet he continues to not explain himself. > >> So you think that telling racist, or sexist, or whatever, jokes > >> doesn't reveal the teller's attitude toward the group mocked? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You repeat yourself. < <Yet he continues to not explain himself. I can't explain him either. --oTTo-- > > >> So you think that telling racist, or sexist, or whatever, jokes > > >> doesn't reveal the teller's attitude toward the group mocked? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yet he continues to not explain himself. We can *explain* it to you, but we cannot *understand* it for you. You Jewish, autistic, schizophrenic, ditzy blonde Kibologist. Dr. HotSalt >> >> So you think that telling racist, or sexist, or whatever, jokes >> >> doesn't reveal the teller's attitude toward the group mocked? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Yet he continues to not explain himself. What is it that you aren't understanding? He is asking you the same questions: Is it that you have no problem with mocking those groups? Is it that you have no problem having negative attitudes toward those groups? In other words, you are criticizing him for mocking and having negative attitudes toward groups. Yet you mock and have negative attitudes toward groups. So what makes your mockery and negative attitudes OK while you find his mockery and negative attitudese repugnant? BW On Mar 1, 5:29 pm, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:47:23 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Is it that you have no problem having negative attitudes toward those > groups? What he is not explaining is how and when I "mocked" "Jews, autists, schizophrenics." "Ditzy blonde" is hardly an identifiable "class," and "Kibologists" are a self-selected gang of w.nkers who deserve all the ridicule they attract by doing it in public (i.e., other newsgroups). > In other words, you are criticizing him for mocking and having > negative attitudes toward groups. Yet you mock and have negative > attitudes toward groups. So what makes your mockery and negative > attitudes OK while you find his mockery and negative attitudese > repugnant? Where do I "mock" and "have negative attitudes" toward those three legitimate "groups"? And how is calling _you_ a "ditzy blonde" when you act like a ditzy blonde "mocking" a "group"? >On Mar 1, 5:29 pm, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:47:23 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >"Kibologists" are a self-selected gang of w.nkers who deserve all the >ridicule they attract by doing it in public (i.e., other newsgroups). Okay, so you have answered his questions. Yes, you have no problem iwth mocking groups. Yes, you have no problem with having negative attitudes toward groups. So I guess your questions to him were to find out whether he is like you. >> In other words, you are criticizing him for mocking and having >> negative attitudes toward groups. Yet you mock and have negative [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Where do I "mock" and "have negative attitudes" toward those three >legitimate "groups"? Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" BW >>Where do I "mock" and "have negative attitudes" toward those three >>legitimate "groups"? > > Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" You know, the opposite of "bastard group." SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog <barbara@bookpro.com> wrote >> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" >You know, the opposite of "bastard group." But what IS the opposite of A.R.K.? Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request ><barbara@bookpro.com> wrote >>> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" > >>You know, the opposite of "bastard group." > >But what IS the opposite of A.R.K.? There is no opposite. It's like a Mobius strip. BW >> <barbara@bookpro.com> wrote >>>> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > There is no opposite. It's like a Mobius strip. There seem to be more dimensions in A.R.K. than two, it's more like Klein bottle or worse. pjk >>>>> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There seem to be more dimensions in A.R.K. than two, > it's more like Klein bottle or worse. What's inside an empty Klein bottle? --oTTo-- >>>>>> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What's inside an empty Klein bottle? A nearly empty universe. SignatureEvan 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/ >What's inside an empty Klein bottle? A Klein bottle is NEVER empty. Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request >>What's inside an empty Klein bottle? > > A Klein bottle is NEVER empty. Perhpaps the real question is whether it's half full or half empty? SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog >>> What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >> >> A Klein bottle is NEVER empty. > > Perhpaps the real question is whether it's half full or half empty? Amongst everything else, each Klein bottle contains all other Klein bottles. My questions is, if the Klein bottle contains everything, does it also contain itself? pjk PaulJK filted: >Amongst everything else, each Klein bottle contains all >other Klein bottles. My questions is, if the Klein bottle contains >everything, does it also contain itself? Does you have *any* Bertrand Russells in that bottle?...r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > PaulJK filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Does you have *any* Bertrand Russells in that bottle?...r I don't know. I'm off to shave and will think about it. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk R H Draney filted: >PaulJK filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Does you have *any* Bertrand Russells in that bottle?...r Grrr...attack of the incomplete rephrasal...should be "*Do* you have" etc....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > R H Draney filted: >> PaulJK filted: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Grrr...attack of the incomplete rephrasal...should be "*Do* you > have" etc....r You wuz bemused by Burton Rustle, lyingz on your telly, soakingz up your intelligencez. http://matouenpeluche.typepad.com/.a/6a00e554e97d5c88340120a7067d56970b-350wi CDB filted: >> R H Draney filted: >>> PaulJK filted: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >your intelligencez. >http://matouenpeluche.typepad.com/.a/6a00e554e97d5c88340120a7067d56970b-350wi Shouldn't he have a White head?...r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > CDB filted: >>> R H Draney filted: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Shouldn't he have a White head?...r He has all that and more, but I don't believe a word of it. > PaulJK filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Does you have *any* Bertrand Russells in that bottle?...r Do you have any contradictions in there? Watch out... http://xkcd.com/704/ SignaturePhysics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it. [Richard Feynman] > PaulJK filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Does you have *any* Bertrand Russells in that bottle?...r There's at least a hundred Jacks for every Bertrand in that bottle. pjk >>>> What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >>> A Klein bottle is NEVER empty. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other Klein bottles. My questions is, if the Klein bottle contains > everything, does it also contain itself? Definitely not. A Klein bottle contains every Klein bottle _except_ itself. That means that the cardinality of the set of all Klein bottles is greater or than equal to aleph null. The cardinality is, I believe, equal to C, but it is still an open question as to whether it is equal to aleph one. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>>> What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >>>> A Klein bottle is NEVER empty. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >Definitely not. A Klein bottle contains every Klein bottle _except_ itself. I wonder. If the universe is closed then the space contained by the Klein bottle extends all the way round the universe until it comes back to the Klein bottle. That Klein bottle is surely indistingishable from any other Klein bottle that the space might have met on its "way round". Hmm. Does "containing" move faster than the speed of light? If not, does any given Klein bottle contain more than the observable universe of which it is the centre? >That means that the cardinality of the set of all Klein bottles is >greater or than equal to aleph null. The cardinality is, I believe, >equal to C, but it is still an open question as to whether it is equal >to aleph one. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>>> What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >>>>> A Klein bottle is NEVER empty. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to the Klein bottle. That Klein bottle is surely indistingishable from > any other Klein bottle that the space might have met on its "way round". Okay, if the universe is closed, the Klein bottle will contain itself. If the universe is infinite, then there will be infinite number of other Klein bottles in it. Each of those bottles will contain our Klein bottle, therefore, our Klein bottle will contain itself via the content of other Klein bottles. In fact one other Klein bottle in the universe would be sufficient. > Hmm. Does "containing" move faster than the speed of light? If not, does > any given Klein bottle contain more than the observable universe of > which it is the centre? And if "containment" is not instantaneus, what happens if I destroy the bottle? There will be ever increasing bubble of containment even when it doesn't exist anymore. Well, why not. If we can see stars that don't exist anymore, we can be contained in the bottles that don't exist anymore. What happens now if I slice the bottle in two thus forming two Möbius strips. Is everything that was in the original bottle above the surface of both strips? pjk >> That means that the cardinality of the set of all Klein bottles is >> greater or than equal to aleph null. The cardinality is, I believe, >> equal to C, but it is still an open question as to whether it is equal >> to aleph one. >>>>> What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >>>> A Klein bottle is NEVER empty. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >Definitely not. A Klein bottle contains every Klein bottle _except_ itself. But, but, but.... The other Klein bottles contain your Klein bottle, so your Klein bottle must contain itself. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>>>> What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >>>>> A Klein bottle is NEVER empty. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The other Klein bottles contain your Klein bottle, so your Klein > bottle must contain itself. Kleins, Kleins, everywhere there's Kleins Bottling up the universe, breaking my mind Get in, don't get in, can't you heed the Klein?! --oTTo-- <--- Interobanging Kleins since 1969 >>What's inside an empty Klein bottle? > > A Klein bottle is NEVER empty. No thing is inside a Klein bottle. --oTTo-- >>>What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >> >> A Klein bottle is NEVER empty. > > No thing is inside a Klein bottle. Or, conversely, the only thing not inside a Klein bottle is the bottle itself. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |English is about as pure as a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |cribhouse whore. We don't just Palo Alto, CA 94304 |borrow words; on occasion, English |has pursued other languages down kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |alleyways to beat them unconscious (650)857-7572 |and rifle their pockets for new |vocabulary. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | --James D. Nicoll >>>>What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Or, conversely, the only thing not inside a Klein bottle is the bottle So you can be beside yourself but not inside yourself? --oTTo-- Otto Bahn filted: >>>>>What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >So you can be beside yourself but not inside yourself? I've tried a few times to work out how you'd do this with a Tardis, but I always run into causality problems....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote >> Or, conversely, the only thing not inside a Klein bottle is the bottle >So you can be beside yourself but not inside yourself? I'm my own grandpa AND grandma? Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request Mark Edwards filted: >"Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote >>> Or, conversely, the only thing not inside a Klein bottle is the bottle > >>So you can be beside yourself but not inside yourself? > >I'm my own grandpa AND grandma? That's a Heinklein bottle....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote >>> Or, conversely, the only thing not inside a Klein bottle is the bottle > >>So you can be beside yourself but not inside yourself? > > I'm my own grandpa AND grandma? You could be your own car's cdr (v. plorkwort). SignatureWhen Elaine turned 11, her mother sent her to train under Donald Knuth in his mountain hideaway. [XKCD 342] >> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote >>>> Or, conversely, the only thing not inside a Klein bottle is the bottle [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You could be your own car's cdr (v. plorkwort). *** Error: Incorrectly used or missing brackets! *** pjk >>> I'm my own grandpa AND grandma? >> >> (You could be your own car's cdr (v. plorkwort)) > > *** Error: Incorrectly used or missing brackets! *** IFMOPFM. SignatureNam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat illa: doidy doidy doidy. [plorkwort] Adam Funk filted: >>>> I'm my own grandpa AND grandma? >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >IFMOPFM. Anybody ever tell you that you type with a lisp?...r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > Adam Funk filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Anybody ever tell you that you type with a lisp?...r 1.5? pjk >>>> What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Or, conversely, the only thing not inside a Klein bottle is the bottle > itself. But it contains all other Klein bottles which contain it. pjk >>>What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >> >> A Klein bottle is NEVER empty. > > No thing is inside a Klein bottle. and... it's *getting bigger*. butting Signaturehttp://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting "Point" [in Windows] is about as meaningful as the "size" numbers on the tags on women's clothing. -- Joy Beeson >>>>What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >and... it's *getting bigger*. It's okay. After a while it gets smaller again. Dave Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. Many people wrote: >>>>>What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >>>> A Klein bottle is NEVER empty. >>> No thing is inside a Klein bottle. >>and... it's *getting bigger*. >It's okay. After a while it gets smaller again. If it doesn't get smaller after four hours, go see your Kleindoktor. Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request >>>>>>What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >>>>> A Klein bottle is NEVER empty. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > If it doesn't get smaller after four hours, go see your Kleindoktor. I'd be pounding on his door after two hours, but that's just me and my monkey. --oTTo-- <--- Juggling safety margins vs. surgical margins >>>>> You know, the opposite of "bastard group." >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >What's inside an empty Klein bottle? EVERYTHING Dave 'AND its mother' DeLaney Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. > >>>>> You know, the opposite of "bastard group." > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Dave 'AND its mother' DeLaney "Outside of a dog, man's best friend is a book. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." --Groucho Marx. > "Outside of a dog, man's best friend is a book. Inside of a dog, it's > too dark to read." --Groucho Marx. Wait, are you seeking reconciliation? SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? >>>>>> You know, the opposite of "bastard group." >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > EVERYTHING Well, everything but the Klein bottle. And if that "everything" is more than the Klein bottle itself, the Klein bottle isn't empty. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you rewrite a compiler from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |scratch, you sometimes fix things Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you didn't know were broken. | Larry Wall kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >>>What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >> >> EVERYTHING > >Well, everything but the Klein bottle. And if that "everything" is >more than the Klein bottle itself, the Klein bottle isn't empty. It holds so much, maybe it should have been called a Grossbottle....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It holds so much, maybe it should have been called a Grossbottle....r No, it's okay, one size fits all. pjk >>>>> What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No, it's okay, one size fits all. That's not what *she* said. --oTTo-- >>>>>> What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's not what *she* said. Weird, *he* said the same thing. >>>>>>> What's inside an empty Klein bottle? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Weird, *he* said the same thing. In and of itself, "he said / she said" is legally ambiguous. --oTTo-- >>>>>> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What's inside an empty Klein bottle? No liquid. SignatureDavid > >>>>>> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > No tea. IFYPFY SignatureSig available on request. - Doctroid >>>>>> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What's inside an empty Klein bottle? Oh you teaser, there's no such thing. All Klein bottles I've ever made in my handy workshop kiln always contained the whole universe including all other Klein bottles in existence. In other words, when I look at a Klein bottle I never see it empty or half full, I always see it full all the way up to the rim. Arrrgh, rim? Rim? Did I say rim? pjk > >>>>>> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > In other words, when I look at a Klein bottle I never see it > empty or half full, I always see it full all the way up to the rim. But did they contain themselves? > Fnarr, rim? Rim? Did I say rim? IFYPFY Dr. HotSalt >>>>>>>> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > But did they contain themselves? only if there is another Klien bottle. If there is only one Klein bottle in existence, it contains everything, EXCEPT itself. if there are two, then it contains the other one, which contains it. SignatureAgainst stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. >>>>> There seem to be more dimensions in A.R.K. than two, >>>>> it's more like Klein bottle or worse. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >in existence, it contains everything, EXCEPT itself. if there are two, >then it contains the other one, which contains it. Which naturally leads to the question of whether containment is transitive. Dave Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. >>>>>> There seem to be more dimensions in A.R.K. than two, >>>>>> it's more like Klein bottle or worse. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Which naturally leads to the question of whether containment is > transitive. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. --oTTo-- >>>only if there is another Klien bottle. If there is only one Klein bottle >>>in existence, it contains everything, EXCEPT itself. if there are two, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you try to stick a turducken in a Klein bottle, will the universe implodiate? (And wouldn't this be cheaper and easier than building a giant tunnel under Geneva?) SignatureI put bomb in squirrel's briefcase and who gets blown up? Me! >>>>only if there is another Klien bottle. If there is only one Klein bottle >>>>in existence, it contains everything, EXCEPT itself. if there are two, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > (And wouldn't this be cheaper and easier than building a giant tunnel > under Geneva?) You big silly, you need a super collider to get the turducken into the Klein bottle. --oTTo-- Otto Bahn: >> If you try to stick a turducken in a Klein bottle, will the universe >> implodiate? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You big silly, you need a super collider to get the turducken into > the Klein bottle. No, no, no. You clean a bottle to get a Geneva supercollider out of a drunken turd: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/oligarch-sons-supercar-crash-geneva> SignatureTrond Engen > Otto Bahn: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > drunken turd: > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/oligarch-sons-supercar-cr...> Yet another sign of the drop in American prestige; the "Ugly American" is being replaced by the "Ugly Russian". Dr. HotSalt >> If you try to stick a turducken in a Klein bottle, will the universe >> implodiate? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You big silly, you need a super collider to get the turducken > into the Klein bottle. One interesting fact I learned during my last trip to the USA: UL refuses to even test turkey deep fryers for certification because it considers the process to be inherently too dangerous. SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting. Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)? >>>>>>> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > contained the whole universe including all other Klein bottles > in existence. It's Klein bottles all the way down. --oTTo-- > <barb...@bookpro.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Shellyhttp://www.cat-sidh.net/blog Help I've fallen in a troll pit and I cant get up! Marie On Mar 2, 8:04 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: > >On Mar 1, 5:29 pm, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > iwth mocking groups. Yes, you have no problem with having negative > attitudes toward groups. I have a negative attitude toward racists and homophobes. Is that a problem for you? Where have I given any indication of a negative attitude toward Jews, autists, or schizophrenics? > So I guess your questions to him were to find out whether he is like > you. No, he is not like me. I do not invite garbage to be crossposted from something called "alt.religion.kibology" into newsgroups to which it is irrelevant. > >> In other words, you are criticizing him for mocking and having > >> negative attitudes toward groups. Yet you mock and have negative [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" It is a contrast with the non-group "ditzy blondes" and the self- selected "group" of w.nkers who post to "alt.religion.kibology." >No, he is not like me. I do not invite garbage to be crossposted from >something called "alt.religion.kibology" into newsgroups to which it >is irrelevant. Sure you do, you cross-posting asstrumpet! >It is a contrast with the non-group "ditzy blondes" and the self- >selected "group" of w.nkers who post to "alt.religion.kibology." We all self-select on this here bozo bus. Or does you minder decide which groups you (cross-)post to? SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog >On Mar 2, 8:04 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:17:23 -0800 (PST), "Pete, other newsgroups). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I have a negative attitude toward racists and homophobes. Is that a >problem for you? In other words, you have no problem with having negative attitudes toward groups. That's what I said. >> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" > >It is a contrast with the non-group "ditzy blondes" and the self- >selected "group" of w.nkers who post to "alt.religion.kibology." Are you saying that you are the one who gets to decide which groups are legitimate and which ones are not? If not, how is it determined which are "legitimate" and which are not? BW On Mar 2, 8:51 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 05:41:29 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > In other words, you have no problem with having negative attitudes > toward groups. That's what I said. Are you going to answer my question? Is it a problem for you to have a negative attitude toward persons who choose to place themselves in a loathsome category? > >> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are legitimate and which ones are not? If not, how is it determined > which are "legitimate" and which are not? So in barb-world, any collection of entities that can be referred to by a noun phrase is a "group," and any comment referring to one member of that group automatically applies to the entire group? That, my dear wankette, is bigotry. >So in barb-world, any collection of entities that can be referred to >by a noun phrase is a "group," and any comment referring to one member >of that group automatically applies to the entire group? > >That, my dear wankette, is bigotry. No, my dear w.nker, that's generalization. Bigotry is characterized by an intolerance of people based solely on which group(s) they fall into. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog >>So in barb-world, any collection of entities that can be referred to >>by a noun phrase is a "group," and any comment referring to one member [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, my dear w.nker, that's generalization. Bigotry is characterized by an > intolerance of people based solely on which group(s) they fall into. Anotherwords, it's the intolerance that causes bigotry, not the grouping together. --oTTo-- >On Mar 2, 8:51 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 05:41:29 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >negative attitude toward persons who choose to place themselves in a >loathsome category? It's very sweet of you to care about my problems. But don't worry. It's not a problem for me if you have negative attitudes toward anybody. Each person is free to have the attitudes they choose to have. Yours do not threaten me in any way, so I don't find them problematic. >> >> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >So in barb-world, any collection of entities that can be referred to >by a noun phrase is a "group," That is pretty much how it works in the real world. It doesn't even have to be a noun phrase. Often just a noun will do. >and any comment referring to one member >of that group automatically applies to the entire group? No, I wouldn't agree with that. But you're evadiing my question again. Is that you get to decide what groups are "legitimate"? If not, how is it determined which groups are "legitimate" and which are not. You are the one who brought in the term "legitimate." I am simply asking you how you make such determinations. BW On Mar 2, 9:22 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: > >On Mar 2, 8:51 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: > >> >On Mar 2, 8:04 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > No, I wouldn't agree with that. It is, however, _precisely_ what you did when you claimed that my calling you a ditzy blonde somehow cast aspersions on all ditzy blondes. You have still provided no evidence that I ever, to use your word, "mocked" the groups Jews, autists, or schizophrenics. You did, of course, simply parrot what Funk wrote, and Funk has never provided any such evidence, either. > But you're evadiing my question again. Is that you get to decide what > groups are "legitimate"? If not, how is it determined which groups > are "legitimate" and which are not. You are the one who brought in > the term "legitimate." I am simply asking you how you make such > determinations. Asked and answered. If you have nothing else, you're done. On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:43:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:844110e5-8aae-49e8-8c1b-23e288deb955@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: > On Mar 2, 9:22 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >>>On Mar 2, 8:51 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >>>>> On Mar 2, 8:04 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: [...] >>>>>> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" >>>>> It is a contrast with the non-group "ditzy blondes" >>>>> and the self- selected "group" of w.nkers who post to >>>>> "alt.religion.kibology." >>>> Are you saying that you are the one who gets to decide >>>> which groups are legitimate and which ones are not? If >>>> not, how is it determined which are "legitimate" and >>>> which are not? >>> So in barb-world, any collection of entities that can be >>> referred to by a noun phrase is a "group," >> That is pretty much how it works in the real world. It >> doesn't even have to be a noun phrase. Often just a >> noun will do. >>> and any comment referring to one member of that group >>> automatically applies to the entire group? >> No, I wouldn't agree with that. > It is, however, _precisely_ what you did when you claimed > that my calling you a ditzy blonde somehow cast > aspersions on all ditzy blondes. You're rewriting history. You wrote: Are you putting on the persona of a ditzy blonde just to annoy me, like the other kibblers? This clearly derogates ditzy blondes as a group. [...] >> But you're evadiing my question again. Is that you get >> to decide what groups are "legitimate"? If not, how is >> it determined which groups are "legitimate" and which >> are not. You are the one who brought in the term >> "legitimate." I am simply asking you how you make such >> determinations. > Asked and answered. [...] Not answered, though the inference that a legitimate group is one that you think should not be mocked certainly lies ready to hand. > You're rewriting history. You wrote: > > Are you putting on the persona of a ditzy blonde just to > annoy me, like the other kibblers? > > This clearly derogates ditzy blondes as a group. It derogates blondes as a group, in fact, with its clear implication that blondeness and ditziness are correlated. What's that in your eye, Daniels? SignatureSig available on request. - Doctroid > In article <n36epe713rzy.xzz8amgly4s2....@40tude.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It derogates blondes as a group, in fact, with its clear implication > that blondeness and ditziness are correlated. It obviously does no such thing, or the qualification "ditzy" would be redundant. > > You're rewriting history. You wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It derogates blondes as a group, in fact, with its clear implication > that blondeness and ditziness are correlated. < <It obviously does no such thing, or the qualification "ditzy" would be <redundant. Oh, please -- it's a phrase/idiom. Everyone knows about the dumb blond stereotype. Don't play stupid. Same goes for talmudic nitpicking. --oTTo-- > Oh, please -- it's a phrase/idiom. Everyone knows about the dumb blond > stereotype. Don't play stupid. Otto? He's not playing. SignatureSig available on request. - Doctroid >> Oh, please -- it's a phrase/idiom. Everyone knows about the dumb blond >> stereotype. Don't play stupid. > >Otto? He's not playing. I agree. He seems to be painfully earnest--and I do mean painfully. BW >>> Oh, please -- it's a phrase/idiom. Everyone knows about the dumb blond >>> stereotype. Don't play stupid. >> >>Otto? He's not playing. > > I agree. He seems to be painfully earnest--and I do mean painfully. The importance of being painful...while pain is a wonderful thing evolutionary-wise, on the individual level it kinda sucks. Alas, mother nature doesn't care about your misery, especially if your offspring learn from it. But in this case I'm seeing a dead end. --oTTo-- > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:43:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > This clearly derogates ditzy blondes as a group. So according to the mathematician, any reference using a noun phrase reifies the referent into a "group." >> You're rewriting history. You wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >So according to the mathematician, any reference using a noun phrase >reifies the referent into a "group." Oh, _I_ see the problem. _Pronoun^WIdentity-element_ trouble! Dave "he doesn't have to killfile you now" DeLaney Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:45:19 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:a7d1db46-13af-4694-a21f-a6522ec81318@u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:43:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:844110e5-8aae-49e8-8c1b-23e288deb955@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> >> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: >>> On Mar 2, 9:22 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >>>>>On Mar 2, 8:51 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:04 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >> [...] >>>>>>>> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" >>>>>>> It is a contrast with the non-group "ditzy blondes" >>>>>>> and the self- selected "group" of w.nkers who post to >>>>>>> "alt.religion.kibology." >>>>>> Are you saying that you are the one who gets to decide >>>>>> which groups are legitimate and which ones are not? If >>>>>> not, how is it determined which are "legitimate" and >>>>>> which are not? >>>>> So in barb-world, any collection of entities that can be >>>>> referred to by a noun phrase is a "group," >>>> That is pretty much how it works in the real world. It >>>> doesn't even have to be a noun phrase. Often just a >>>> noun will do. >>>>> and any comment referring to one member of that group >>>>> automatically applies to the entire group? >>>> No, I wouldn't agree with that. >>> It is, however, _precisely_ what you did when you claimed >>> that my calling you a ditzy blonde somehow cast >>> aspersions on all ditzy blondes. >> You're rewriting history. You wrote: >> Are you putting on the persona of a ditzy blonde just to >> annoy me, like the other kibblers? >> This clearly derogates ditzy blondes as a group. > So according to the mathematician, any reference using a > noun phrase reifies the referent into a "group." Pretending to be this stupid seems an excessive price to pay for refusing to admit error. > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:45:19 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Pretending to be this stupid seems an excessive price to pay > for refusing to admit error.- So stop doing it. On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 21:59:08 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:37da9397-5cc0-482d-9c3c-5b47a2253d23@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:45:19 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:a7d1db46-13af-4694-a21f-a6522ec81318@u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com> >> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: [...] >>>> This clearly derogates ditzy blondes as a group. >>> So according to the mathematician, any reference using a >>> noun phrase reifies the referent into a "group." >> Pretending to be this stupid seems an excessive price to pay >> for refusing to admit error.- > So stop doing it. If we take your 'So according ...' post at face value, you (a) think that it's responsive to my 'rewriting history' post and (b) can no more recognize an invalid inference than your left heel. I realize that unresponsive responses are your usual way of tacitly acknowledging error, and more often than not I've given them a free pass, but I find myself increasingly unwilling to tolerate such childishness from someone who is perfectly capable of making useful contributions. >On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 21:59:08 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" ><grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >from someone who is perfectly capable of making useful >contributions. Is he really? The mind boggles. BW > >>>>>>>> Please explain the term "legitimate 'group.'" > >>>>>>> It is a contrast with the non-group "ditzy blondes" [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Pretending to be this stupid seems an excessive price to pay > for refusing to admit error.- < <So stop doing it. We get it, Peter. The entire band is out of step with you. --oTTo-- >>> You're rewriting history. You wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> So according to the mathematician, any reference using a >> noun phrase reifies the referent into a "group." In "I saw a brown dog in the park", the indefiniteness of the NP generally implies that there is more than one brown dog in the universe (or domain of discourse). > Pretending to be this stupid seems an excessive price to pay > for refusing to admit error. Apparently Peter will pay *any* price to avoid admitting error. Signature"It is the role of librarians to keep government running in difficult times," replied Dramoren. "Librarians are the last line of defence against chaos." (McMullen 2001) >>>> You're rewriting history. You wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Apparently Peter will pay *any* price to avoid admitting error. That will make Paul very happy indeed! --oTTo-- [...] > > Apparently Peter will pay *any* price to avoid admitting error. > > That will make Paul very happy indeed! Not to mention Mary. > > Apparently Peter will pay *any* price to avoid admitting error. > > That will make Paul very happy indeed! < <Not to mention Mary. Or the wool over Jacob's eyes. --oTTo-- >>> So according to the mathematician, any reference using a noun phrase >>> reifies the referent into a "group." >>> > In "I saw a brown dog in the park", the indefiniteness of the NP > generally implies that there is more than one brown dog in the > universe (or domain of discourse). According to the mathematician, you saw a dog, at least one side of which was brown. The outside, of course. >> In "I saw a brown dog in the park", the indefiniteness of the NP >> generally implies that there is more than one brown dog in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The outside, of course. ObARK "...too dark to read." SignatureUnix is a user-friendly operating system. It's just very choosy about its friends. >On Mar 2, 9:22 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >> >On Mar 2, 8:51 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >calling you a ditzy blonde somehow cast aspersions on all ditzy >blondes. No, I never said that. As far as I know, you never called me a ditzy blonde. Nor did I make any claim about ditzy blondes as a group or about your attitudes toward them. >You have still provided no evidence that I ever, to use your word, >"mocked" the groups Jews, autists, or schizophrenics. You did, of >course, simply parrot what Funk wrote, and Funk has never provided any >such evidence, either. I never said you mocked those particular groups. I don't care whether you did or didn't. I said that you mock groups. I didn't specify which groups. You admitted that you mock groups--maybe not those groups, but some groups that you apparently feel deserve to be mocked. I am satisfied with your admission that you do indeed mock groups. >> But you're evadiing my question again. Is that you get to decide what >> groups are "legitimate"? If not, how is it determined which groups [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Asked and answered. If you have nothing else, you're done. No, you never answered it. I'll separate out the questions to make it easier for you. Is it that you (Peter T. Daniels) get to decide what groups are "legitimate"? That's a yes-or-no question. Pick one. Are you the one who gets to decide, yes or no? If not, how is it determined which groups are "legitimate" and which are not? In other words, what is the process for making that determination? BW > If not, how is it determined which groups are "legitimate" and which > are not? Were the parents married? > In other words, what is the process for making that > determination? You have to go to County Clerks offices and look up the marriage certificate and compare dates. This can be tedious. SignatureBe careful what you wish for. You never know who will be listening. Or what, for that matter. --Soul Music > But you're evadiing my question again. Is that you get to decide what > groups are "legitimate"? If not, how is it determined which groups > are "legitimate" and which are not. You are the one who brought in > the term "legitimate." I am simply asking you how you make such > determinations. < <Asked and answered. If you have nothing else, you're done. On what basis can you presume someone else is done?! --oTTo-- >> But you're evadiing my question again. Is that you get to decide what >> groups are "legitimate"? If not, how is it determined which groups [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >On what basis can you presume someone else is done?! Perhaps he thought he felt the little thermometer pop up? Dave "hint: barbara is a GURL" DeLaney Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. > ...the self-w.nking "group" of the Select who post to > "alt.religion.kibology." IFYbiasFY. Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request > On Mar 2, 8:04 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Where have I given any indication of a negative attitude toward Jews, > autists, or schizophrenics? Give yourself a break and speak in ebonics, already. I know you want to. -- YOP... > What he is not explaining is how and when I "mocked" "Jews, autists, > schizophrenics." "Ditzy blonde" is hardly an identifiable "class," and > "Kibologists" are a self-selected gang of w.nkers who deserve all the > ridicule they attract by doing it in public (i.e., other newsgroups). Keep digging. > Where do I "mock" and "have negative attitudes" toward those three > legitimate "groups"? <dffa67d2-71e0-41cf-bd77-0c2a7ec0a3e4@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> <1fd85e61-1a32-4a15-a70c-00e4f28f92e0@w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> <1187452468.198750.292560@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> (It's typically arrogant of you to think you have the right to decide which groups are legitimate.) SignatureIn the 1970s, people began receiving utility bills for -£999,999,996.32 and it became harder to sustain the myth of the infallible electronic brain. (Stob 2001) > > What he is not explaining is how and when I "mocked" "Jews, autists, > > schizophrenics." "Ditzy blonde" is hardly an identifiable "class," and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (It's typically arrogant of you to think you have the right to decide > which groups are legitimate.) Either quote what they say, or put those strings of characters in the form of a link so that they can be followed. >Either quote what they say, or put those strings of characters in the >form of a link so that they can be followed. You are obviously allowed to use whatever tools you wish to access Usenet, but it's not Mr. Funk's problem if you insist on using one that's broken. If you were using an actual newsreader, the message IDs would have been rendered properly, and you would have been able to search them in Google Groups. (And the bar for "actual newsreader" is set pretty low, because even Windows Mail nee Outlook Express can manage it.) SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog > If [Peter T. Daniels] were using an actual newsreader, the message IDs > would have been rendered properly, and [xe] would have been able to > search them in Google Groups. My "actual newsreader" stupidly renders them as "mailto:" hyperlinks. But then it is Thunderbird, the newsreader that's so smart that it hands off "news:" hyperlinks to a WWW browser. Jonathan, your clock is 1.2 days late. Would you fix that, please ? ThunderBird has NEVER been able to process “news:” links and, when I discussed this with the developers, they requested that I code it for them ! >? >Jonathan, your clock is 1.2 days late. Would you fix that, please ? Off and on for 10 years my clock has had a tendency to be squirrely. How can I fix this, Jeff? >ThunderBird has NEVER been able to process news: links and, >when I discussed this with the developers, >they requested that I code it for them ! The bastards! You ( Mr. Hall ) can tell your computer to: “automatically synchronize with an internet time* server”. *: http://www.google.com/search?q=define:SNTP On Vista, it's under the “Internet Time” tab in control panel's “Date and Time” dialog. Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18·@·gmail.com> was the Mozilla ThunderBird dev I talked to... “news:mID” ( with no server ) doesn't work because T.B. has no default NNTP server and no way to select one. I don't want to code T.B., the work·around is to use a Google Groups link instead of “news:”. JeffRelf.F-M.FM   @. wrote: > You ( Mr. Hall ) can tell your computer to: > “automatically synchronize with an internet time* server”. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I don't want to code T.B., > the work·around is to use a Google Groups link instead of “news:”. I'm quite sure that no news client has a default NNTP server. You have to find one and get an account on it. I use news.albasani.net -- a free server. Then you have to set up your news client (Thunderbird) to access that server. SignatureSkitt (AmE) > JeffRelf.F-M.FM   @. wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > server. Then you have to set up your news client (Thunderbird) to > access that server. Part of the catch is that Thunderbird lets you set up accounts with several news servers, just as you can have several mail accounts. (And I do both of these.) With the mail accounts, you have a "set as default" option to say which account to choose when following a mailto: link. For news accounts, the "set as default" button is disabled. As I recall it, other news clients do let you choose your default news server. Thunderbird is well-designed in some areas, but now and then you get the impression that the implementers have never tried to use newsgroups in any serious way. (Although I'll grant them this: they understand newsgroups a hell of a lot better than Google does.) It could be worse. Thunderbird version 3 includes some really weird design decisions. I tried it for a few weeks, but then ran screaming back to Thunderbird 2. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > > JeffRelf.F-M.FM   @. wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > any serious way. (Although I'll grant them this: they understand > newsgroups a hell of a lot better than Google does.) There's a "serious way" to use newsgroups?? Have they all along been being used frivolously? > It could be worse. Thunderbird version 3 includes some really weird > design decisions. I tried it for a few weeks, but then ran screaming > back to Thunderbird 2. >> > JeffRelf.F-M.FM   @. wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >There's a "serious way" to use newsgroups?? Have they all along been >being used frivolously? Absolutely >> It could be worse. Thunderbird version 3 includes some really weird >> design decisions. I tried it for a few weeks, but then ran screaming >> back to Thunderbird 2. >> I'm quite sure that no news client has a default NNTP server. You >> have to find one and get an account on it. I use news.albasani.net [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > disabled. As I recall it, other news clients do let you choose your > default news server. I use OE, and I have accounts with two news servers. There is no default server, and I can select which server I want to use just by clicking on it. > Thunderbird is well-designed in some areas, but now and then you get > the impression that the implementers have never tried to use > newsgroups in any serious way. (Although I'll grant them this: they > understand newsgroups a hell of a lot better than Google does.) I have Thunderbird on one of my flash drives, and it is set up for albasani, but that flash drive is strictly for emergencies and backup, so except for the original test, I have never used that newsreader. The test showed that it works fine, though. > It could be worse. Thunderbird version 3 includes some really weird > design decisions. I tried it for a few weeks, but then ran screaming > back to Thunderbird 2. I have version 2.0.0.23 (20090812) on that flash drive. I guess, I should not update. SignatureSkitt (AmE) > Thunderbird is well-designed in some areas, but now and then you get the > impression that the implementers have never tried to use newsgroups in > any serious way. I would say rather that it's been fixed pretty well in many areas recently, but on the whole it still seems to have been designed by people who never saw a newsgroup in their lives. ¬R >> Thunderbird is well-designed in some areas, but now and then you get the >> impression that the implementers have never tried to use newsgroups in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > recently, but on the whole it still seems to have been designed by > people who never saw a newsgroup in their lives. I get the impression that no programmer of that kind of software and certainly no software company director knows what a newsgroup is. I suspect that the only reason we can still access newsgroups is because "they" are worried that it might be dangerous to remove the tiny bit of code that deals with them. I could say much the same about ISPs. SignatureRob Bannister >> ? >> Jonathan, your clock is 1.2 days late. Would you fix that, please ? I wondered why I couldn't find the message that you were replying to here, so that I could clue in the person posting that request about how messages propagate over Usenet. Then I caught up with recent discussions in news.software.readers, and learned more than I really wanted to know about Jeff Relf, and the idea being bandied about for adding a "Relf Stupidity Marker" to Unicode. Patently, given the extreme levels of clue-resistance displayed elsewhere, dispensing clue about how messages propagate in planet-wide store-and-forward networks is not worthwhile here. However, I do have a tidbit to share with those of you asking other people to killfile M. Relf. I found out the reason that I didn't see M. Relf's postings when I came across the replies to xyr latest wheeze of having xyr own message ID syntax. My NNTP server is quite strict about ensuring that messages adhere to the syntax in RFC 5322 for the required header fields. Relf's messages are, it transpires from an inspection of the newsfeed logs, being rejected by the inbound newsfeed, variously because of broken message IDs, malformed originator mailbox names, and other such tomfoolery. So there you have it. The ideal solution to your woes: Just make your NNTP servers strictly adhere to RFC 5322. (-: > > > What he is not explaining is how and when I "mocked" "Jews, autists, > > > schizophrenics." "Ditzy blonde" is hardly an identifiable "class," and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Either quote what they say, or put those strings of characters in the > form of a link so that they can be followed. Message IDs are the standard way of referencing old Usenet posts. Your newsreader should be able to follow those references. If you are stuck using Google Groups (as am I), just copy the message ID into the bottom box here http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=& (labelled "Message ID") to find the message. It's unreasonable to expect the majority of Usenet users not to use the traditional (and more useful when using a real newsreader) form. >If you are >stuck using Google Groups (as am I), just copy the message ID into the >bottom box here http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=& (labelled >"Message ID") to find the message. The problem (for Mr. Daniels, not Mr. Funk!) is that Google Groups replaces a portion of each posted message ID with ellipses. So Mr. Daniels cannot just copy the message ID and paste it into the appropriate GG search box, because part of the message ID is missing. >It's unreasonable to expect the >majority of Usenet users not to use the traditional (and more useful >when using a real newsreader) form. Amen to that. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog > <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Daniels cannot just copy the message ID and paste it into the > appropriate GG search box, because part of the message ID is missing. If you click on the ellipses, you can un-elide the message ID. >> The problem (for Mr. Daniels, not Mr. Funk!) is that Google Groups >> replaces a portion of each posted message ID with ellipses. So Mr. >> Daniels cannot just copy the message ID and paste it into the >> appropriate GG search box, because part of the message ID is missing. > >If you click on the ellipses, you can un-elide the message ID. I'M 'clicking' ON MY "ellipsis" _RIGHT NOW_, if you know what I mean. Or if you know what I think I mean, or what I meant to mean. And I think I mean to say that you do. Dave Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. >If you click on the ellipses, you can un-elide the message ID. For crying out loud! Shame on Mr. Daniels for being insufferably lazy and/or incompetent, then. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog > <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > For crying out loud! Shame on Mr. Daniels for being insufferably lazy > and/or incompetent, then. Do you believe everything you read? Clicking on the ellipsis took me to a screen with a security code to type in, whcih took me right back to the same thread -- with the underline showing that the ellipsis was active now gone, and nothing clickable at all. On Mar 4, 11:59 am, "Shelly" <she...@cat-sidh.net> wrote: > <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > For crying out loud! Shame on Mr. Daniels for being insufferably lazy > and/or incompetent, then. >Do you believe everything you read? No, which is why I investigated further myself. Google Groups *has* improved its functionality since the last time I tried to wrestle message IDs from its maw. >Clicking on the ellipsis took me to a screen with a security code to >type in, whcih took me right back to the same thread -- with the >underline showing that the ellipsis was active now gone, and nothing >clickable at all. Yes, that is what it does. If you didn't know what to do with the message ID, once you had it, you could have, oh, I don't know, *asked*. But no, you chose blame someone else for your ignorance. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog > <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Daniels cannot just copy the message ID and paste it into the > appropriate GG search box, because part of the message ID is missing. No, that is not the problem at all. When google groups replaces a visible portion of a url with an ellipsis, the link remains active and clickable. > >It's unreasonable to expect the > >majority of Usenet users not to use the traditional (and more useful > >when using a real newsreader) form. > > Amen to that. >No, that is not the problem at all. When google groups replaces a >visible portion of a url with an ellipsis, the link remains active and >clickable. Yes, I know that. Apparently you do not understand what your problem is. Why am I not surprised? SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog > stuck using Google Groups (as am I), just copy the message ID into the > bottom box here http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=& (labelled > "Message ID") to find the message. Or preface the Message-ID with "http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=" like so: <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dffa67d2-71e0-41cf-bd77-0c2a7ec0a3e4@26g200 0yqo.googlegroups.com> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1fd85e61-1a32-4a15-a70c-00e4f28f92e0@w31g20 00yqk.googlegroups.com> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1187452468.198750.292560@g4g2000hsf.googleg roups.com> Of course, when the message-IDs are so long and contain so many hyphens, it may take extraordinary measures to keep your newsreader from splitting them. ¬R > On 03/04/2010 11:32 AM, sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > hyphens, it may take extraordinary measures to keep your newsreader > from splitting them. Or, he could simply tell me what his delusion about what I posted is. >Or, he could simply tell me what his delusion about what I posted is. When you read a citation in a printed work, do you call the author and demand that s/he read the original text to you? You *are* familiar with the concept of looking up information, yes? SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog >>Or, he could simply tell me what his delusion about what I posted is. > >When you read a citation in a printed work, do you call the author and >demand that s/he read the original text to you? You *are* familiar with >the concept of looking up information, yes? It's a good way to make sure someone isn't quoted out of context and that quotes aren't fabricated. If Peter feels confident that he hasn't maligned whatever groups, then I don't know why he's so worried about it. Anyone who does bother to check those posts will draw their own conclusions. BW > It's a good way to make sure someone isn't quoted out of context and > that quotes aren't fabricated. Exactly. Go look up the original source yourself, to make sure that it's not being fudged around with. But I suppose Adam could say that Peter wrote just about anything, and Peter would be helpless to prove otherwise, since he seems to have no idea how to find that information himself, nor how to ask for help in locating it. > If Peter feels confident that he hasn't maligned whatever groups, then > I don't know why he's so worried about it. Anyone who does bother to > check those posts will draw their own conclusions. I expect most of them have already done so. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog > <barb...@bookpro.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > otherwise, since he seems to have no idea how to find that information > himself, nor how to ask for help in locating it. What Funk provided was not a link. It was an uninterpretable string of characters. I cannot "find that information" because I have no idea what Funk searched for, since I have no idea what he is talking about. > > If Peter feels confident that he hasn't maligned whatever groups, then > > I don't know why he's so worried about it. Anyone who does bother to > > check those posts will draw their own conclusions. > > I expect most of them have already done so. Then perhaps one of them will tell us what the supposed "insult to a group" was? > > It's a good way to make sure someone isn't quoted out of context and > > that quotes aren't fabricated. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > otherwise, since he seems to have no idea how to find that information > himself, nor how to ask for help in locating it. < <What Funk provided was not a link. It was an uninterpretable string of <characters. Lots of links are like that. --oTTo-- "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in news:2b583090-c984-4845-8003-9f2633ff38ba@o30g2000yqb.googlegroup s.com: > What Funk provided was not a link. It was an uninterpretable > string of characters. I didn't say Adam provided a link. That was *your* misapprehension. He provided a list of message IDs, which are not links. Glenn was nice enough to turn those message IDs into actual links for you, though. You have yet to avail yourself of them or even to thank him for his assistance, by the way. > I cannot "find that information" because I have no idea what > Funk searched for, since I have no idea what he is talking > about. Are you this helpless in real life? > Then perhaps one of them will tell us what the supposed > "insult to a group" was? I believe Adam already did. HTH! SignatureShelly http://cat-sidh.net/blog > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote innews:2b583090-c984-4845-8003-9f2633ff38ba@o30g2000yqb.googlegroup > s.com: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > actual links for you, though. You have yet to avail yourself of > them or even to thank him for his assistance, by the way. If he did, then he didn't post them. Maybe he emailed them to you personally? > > I cannot "find that information" because I have no idea what > > Funk searched for, since I have no idea what he is talking [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I believe Adam already did. HTH! No, he didn't. On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 20:23:21 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:bbdfb66d-ea07-4823-b093-faf20cb22119@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote >> innews:2b583090-c984-4845-8003-9f2633ff38ba@o30g2000yqb.g >> ooglegroup s.com: >>> What Funk provided was not a link. It was an uninterpretable >>> string of characters. >> I didn't say Adam provided a link. That was *your* >> misapprehension. He provided a list of message IDs, which are >> not links. Glenn was nice enough to turn those message IDs into >> actual links for you, though. You have yet to avail yourself of >> them or even to thank him for his assistance, by the way. > If he did, then he didn't post them. Maybe he emailed them to you > personally? He posted them. You responded to the post in which he first did so, saying that they didn't work. You were then told how to make them work, but for some unknown reason you were still unable to do so. [...] >>> Then perhaps one of them will tell us what the supposed >>> "insult to a group" was? >> I believe Adam already did. HTH! > No, he didn't. Yes, he did. That you don't accept them is another matter altogether. Brian > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 20:23:21 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Yes, he did. That you don't accept them is another matter > altogether. Didn't accept what? Glenn turned up an example where I used the word "schizophrenic" to use the different behavior of the Oxford and New York offices of Oxford University Press. How is that some sort of slur about persons diagnosed with schizophrenia? >> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 20:23:21 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Didn't accept what? Didn't accept that they were Message-IDs that could be used to find the posts. Other people managed. You just whined about not being able to, even when someone explained to you how to use them. BW On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 04:27:35 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:37b3acd8-0605-48ff-be07-9caae37c7543@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: >> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 20:23:21 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:bbdfb66d-ea07-4823-b093-faf20cb22119@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com> >> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: >>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote >>>> innews:2b583090-c984-4845-8003-9f2633ff38ba@o30g2000yqb.g >>>> ooglegroup s.com: [...] >>>>> Then perhaps one of them will tell us what the supposed >>>>> "insult to a group" was? >>>> I believe Adam already did. HTH! >>> No, he didn't. >> Yes, he did. That you don't accept them is another matter >> altogether. > Didn't accept what? That they were examples of insults to a group, obviously. [...] Brian >If he did, then he didn't post them. Maybe he emailed them to you >personally? Sure he did: Message ID: 24GdnWGu5fUvmg3WnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@bestweb.net >No, he didn't. You seem to expend an awful lot of energy maintaining your ignorance. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog >>If he did, then he didn't post them. Maybe he emailed them to you >>personally? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >You seem to expend an awful lot of energy maintaining your ignorance. Makes you wonder what he gets out of doing so, doesn't it? BW >>"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message [stuff] >>You seem to expend an awful lot of energy maintaining your ignorance. > > Makes you wonder what he gets out of doing so, doesn't it? oh sh.t. we're helping someone prepare for a run on public office in Alaska. butting Signaturehttp://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sergeant came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy." Didn't feel too good about it. -- Arlo Guthrey >>If he did, then he didn't post them. Maybe he emailed them to you >>personally? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >You seem to expend an awful lot of energy maintaining your ignorance. I'm using Forte Agent and all I had to do was click on the message ID and it was found in my Trash folder. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >>If he did, then he didn't post them. Maybe he emailed them to you > >>personally? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'm using Forte Agent and all I had to do was click on the > message ID and it was found in my Trash folder. Meaning that you have the old Netscape-style newsreader that downloads every message to your hard drive. >> >>If he did, then he didn't post them. Maybe he emailed them to you >> >>personally? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Meaning that you have the old Netscape-style newsreader that downloads >every message to your hard drive. No, meaning nothing of the kind. Why do you persist in parading your ignorance in the guise of wanting to look knowledgeable? As he said, he's using Forte Agent. Forte Agent has nothing to do with Netscape or any other browser, and it allows users to choose what to download and when. It doesn't download every message unless the user specifically chooses that setting. It also has reasonably good killfiling functions. You could use Forte Agent and never have to see another of Adam Funks posts again if you chose. BW On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:21:50 -0500, <barbara@bookpro.com> wrote in <news:hj73p51tbj916kqpgjiajlo6cdrv09n56c@4ax.com> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: [...] >>> I'm using Forte Agent and all I had to do was click on the >>> message ID and it was found in my Trash folder. >> Meaning that you have the old Netscape-style newsreader >> that downloads every message to your hard drive. > No, meaning nothing of the kind. Why do you persist in > parading your ignorance in the guise of wanting to look > knowledgeable? > As he said, he's using Forte Agent. Forte Agent has > nothing to do with Netscape or any other browser, and it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Forte Agent and never have to see another of Adam Funks > posts again if you chose. Or 40tude Dialog, with very similar functionality for free. Brian >On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:21:50 -0500, <barbara@bookpro.com> >wrote in <news:hj73p51tbj916kqpgjiajlo6cdrv09n56c@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Or 40tude Dialog, with very similar functionality for free. Sure, or probably at least three or four others. It's pretty funny to see someone who posts through Google trying to be patronizing about other people's newsreaders. BW On Mar 5, 4:41 pm, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:31:20 -0500, "Brian M. Scott" > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > It's pretty funny to see someone who posts through Google trying to be > patronizing about other people's newsreaders. It's even funnier watching him not know how to use *Google groups* built-in functions frinst the list of groups *he* is posting to so he can avoid hypocritically cross-posting his screeds to inappropriate groups. Why, if Mr. Daniels really doesn't want to see certain posters' writings in "his" group, he can even download a killfile add-on (if one uses Firefox*), but applying and using such is probably outside Mr. Daniels' skill set as well. Wait, one can *learn* skills if on applies oneself... * Of course, he might be using IE. (snicker) Dr. HotSalt > It's even funnier watching him not know how to use *Google groups* > built-in functions frinst the list of groups *he* is posting to so he > can avoid hypocritically cross-posting his screeds to inappropriate > groups. So you think I should send replies to newsgroups the replyee doesn't read? What would be the point of that? >> It's even funnier watching him not know how to use *Google groups* >> built-in functions frinst the list of groups *he* is posting to so he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So you think I should send replies to newsgroups the replyee doesn't > read? What would be the point of that? good question, that. very good question. what groups -do- you think said replyees are reading? butting Signaturehttp://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting My local pub is really called "THE LANSDOWN". -- jamesr > >> It's even funnier watching him not know how to use *Google groups* > >> built-in functions frinst the list of groups *he* is posting to so he [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > what groups -do- you think said replyees are reading? Most of you are reading what Funk calls ARK. >Most of you are reading what Funk calls ARK. And how on earth would you "know" that, when there are so many things you DON'T know? Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request > >Most of you are reading what Funk calls ARK. > > And how on earth would you "know" that, when there are so many things you > DON'T know? Because I know that you are not readers of sci.lang or aue. Was that really too difficult for you to figure out for yourself? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in news:1aa8ef51- fc55-4492-97cf-05cb2fd9e563@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com: > Because I know that you are not readers of sci.lang or aue. How on earth could you possibly know that? SignatureShelly http://cat-sidh.net/blog >"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in news:1aa8ef51- >> Because I know that you are not readers of sci.lang or aue. > >How on earth could you possibly know that? The lurkers have trolled him in email. Duh. Dave Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. >> >Most of you are reading what Funk calls ARK. >> >> And how on earth would you "know" that, when there are so many things you >> DON'T know? > >Because I know that you are not readers of sci.lang or aue. And you are a reader of aue? You've given up denying this? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > I know that you are not readers of sci.lang or aue. And how are you able to determine what groups I read? It's possible that you are just guessing and that you've guessed wrong. Remember that not posting is not the same as not reading. Not to mention, I am obviously reading posts that have been crossposted to both, so you are once again proven wrong. Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request >> >> It's even funnier watching him not know how to use *Google groups* >> >> built-in functions frinst the list of groups *he* is posting to so he [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Most of you are reading what Funk calls ARK. So set follow-ups to that group. BW On Mar 7, 12:19 pm, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: > >> >> It's even funnier watching him not know how to use *Google groups* > >> >> built-in functions frinst the list of groups *he* is posting to so he [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > So set follow-ups to that group. I don't need to "set follow-ups." The reply is automatically sent to the same groups as the message to which it replies. Did you really need me to tell you that? >On Mar 7, 12:19 pm, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >I don't need to "set follow-ups." The reply is automatically sent to >the same groups as the message to which it replies. Of course it is. I thought you were objecting to crossposting. You do enough of it--then act all helpless as if you're not in control of your own posts. If you don't want to keep a thread crossposted, setting follow-ups is one way. BW On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:33:15 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:c1ddf6a2-7004-4a79-abe9-a0e9d4cd5f39@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: > On Mar 7, 12:19 pm, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: [...] >>>Most of you are reading what Funk calls ARK. >> So set follow-ups to that group. > I don't need to "set follow-ups." The reply is automatically sent to > the same groups as the message to which it replies. > Did you really need me to tell you that? Do you really need us to tell you that setting follow-ups is how you override that default action? > On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:33:15 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Do you really need us to tell you that setting follow-ups is > how you override that default action? There are other, to me more obvious ways like deleting one or more groups in the address or "To" box. SignatureRob Bannister >> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:33:15 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >There are other, to me more obvious ways like deleting one or more >groups in the address or "To" box. The potential advantage of using "Followups" is that your post goes to all the groups that were in your header, but replies to your post do not go to any groups not included in the "Followup". This makes it easier for readers in the eliminated groups to figure out where the posts are now going. Simply eliminating some groups from the the header means that the subthread begun by you simply disappears and there would be no way to know you had redirected it. In fact, if you're in one of the eliminated groups, you won't even see your own message. Maybe that's good, maybe not. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >> >> >> It's even funnier watching him not know how to use *Google groups* [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I don't need to "set follow-ups." The reply is automatically sent to >the same groups as the message to which it replies. So ... your computer does it automatically? BINGO! >Did you really need me to tell you that? Dave "yes, because otherwise I'd've had three more squares to fill" DeLaney Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. >On Mar 7, 12:19 pm, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Did you really need me to tell you that? You don't seem to know what "followups" does. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:33:15 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > You don't seem to know what "followups" does. Evidence? Did I just not go to something called "news.software.readers" to repost to the three actual groups involved in this discussion messages that the person with the double-barreled name maliciously "follow- upped" there? After I noticed that one of my replies had not yet appeared in sci.lang? Have I not myself on occasion set followups to remove aue from discussions that were too technical for them to be interested? > > It's even funnier watching him not know how to use *Google groups* > > built-in functions frinst the list of groups *he* is posting to so he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So you think I should send replies to newsgroups the replyee doesn't > read? What would be the point of that? See, that sort of statement is what earns you the mockery you so dislike. You may not understand why this is, so let's go through this step-by- step, shall we? You post to sci.lang, and most of us are aware that the sciences are founded on principles like cause-and-effect, and logic. (Most of the denizens of ARK are sharply aware of these principles and their application; you may have recently gained some small awareness of that.) You post something (in sci.lang and/or alt.usage.english) that a hypothetical Reader, oh, let's say Adam Funk, finds screamingly silly* (or offensive*). Note that Reader CAN NOT have an opinion re: your statements in those groups if he DOES NOT READ either of those groups. Reader then replies to you in one or both of those groups adding a crosspost to his reply into ARK. You consider adding said crosspost to be inappropriate. You may then feel compelled to reply to Reader, but you have the option to trim the list of groups you post to so that your reply only appears in AUE and/or SL, yet you do not do this. Your response is that you want to make certain Reader reads your reply, but you are concerned he might not if you don't post to a group he reads. However, we have already established that Reader reads AT LEAST one of SL and AUE. Hence you have the option to at least trim out ARK from your replies so that you, as you have repeatedly opined others ought to do, can avoid drawing in "undesirables" from ARK. Hence by the principles of logic your readers are (well, I am) tempted to draw conclusions; you are either 1) crossposting inadvertently, or 2) crossposting deliberately. If you are crossposting inadvertently, you are either 1) unaware of the relevant functionality of Google Groups* or 2) aware of the relevant functionality but incompetent to use it*. We know that you *are* aware of it though; several ARKers have gone to great lengths to explain it to you. You are still not using it; hence you are either 1) incompetent to use it* or 2) choosing not to use it. If you are choosing not to use it, despite opining others ought to do so, you are 1) a hypocrite*. If you are crossposting deliberately you are either 1) a hypocrite* or 2) trying to troll ARK. If you are trying to troll ARK, you are 1) a hypocrite*. So, would you please clarify; are you incompetent, or a hypocrite? * Any of these options makes you eligible for mockery** ***. ** Actually, merely existing makes you eligible for mockery, but don't feel special; one of the fundamental principles of ARK is that *everybody* is eligible. Elegant self-mockery is especially appreciated. *** Also, we can try harder to teach you how to use it. You don't even have to be nice about it, or thank anybody. Wouldn't hurt though. Dr. HotSalt > You post to sci.lang, and most of us are aware that the sciences are >founded on principles like cause-and-effect, and logic. (Most of the >denizens of ARK are sharply aware of these principles and their >application; you may have recently gained some small awareness of that.) One must know the rules in order to beable to break them artistically, after all. > However, we have already established that Reader reads AT LEAST one >of SL and AUE. Hence you have the option to at least trim out ARK from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hence by the principles of logic your readers are (well, I am) >tempted to draw conclusions; you are either standing on the left side of the lady in the green sweater smoking the Camel? >1) crossposting inadvertently, or >2) crossposting deliberately. ...oh. I'll have to start again then. > We know that you *are* aware of it though; several ARKers have gone >to great lengths to explain it to you. You can teach a course what oughta, but you can't make'em think. > If you are trying to troll ARK, you are > >1) a hypocrite*. And not doing it very well either. > So, would you please clarify; are you incompetent, or a hypocrite? Oh, you'd already covered that. Never mind. >one of the fundamental principles of ARK is that >*everybody* is eligible. Elegant self-mockery is especially appreciated. Percent TEH FUNNI sold by weight, NOT BY VOLUME. Dave Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. > > > It's even funnier watching him not know how to use *Google groups* > > > built-in functions frinst the list of groups *he* is posting to so he [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > option to trim the list of groups you post to so that your reply only > appears in AUE and/or SL, yet you do not do this. I do so whenever I notice that Funk has performed that antisocial act. Sometimes I fail to notice. > Your response is that you want to make certain Reader reads your > reply, but you are concerned he might not if you don't post to a group [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 1) crossposting inadvertently, or As one of you just put it, BINGO. > 2) crossposting deliberately. One you lot have started making false statements about me, I correct them. I do not reply to the stupid puns with which you pollute sci.lang. > If you are crossposting inadvertently, you are either > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Dr. HotSalt >I do not reply to the stupid puns with which you pollute sci.lang. ... ... OK. I honestly think this means ur doin it rong. Dave "where BETTER for puns to be dissected?" DeLaney Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. > > > > It's even funnier watching him not know how to use *Google groups* > > > > built-in functions frinst the list of groups *he* is posting to so he [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I do so whenever I notice that Funk has performed that antisocial act. Ah, *you* consider it to be antisocial. *We* consider it to be *sharing*. > Sometimes I fail to notice. Let me get this straight; you know who Reader is, you are aware from past experience that he is prone to this particularly when interacting with you, and yet you fail to check for crossposts? You have admitted (at least partial) incompetence. That's encouraging, I was starting to think you were a compleat stiff. > > Your response is that you want to make certain Reader reads your > > reply, but you are concerned he might not if you don't post to a group [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > As one of you just put it, BINGO. Aha, we continue to make progress. > One you lot have started making false statements about me, I correct > them. I haven't noticed any statements being falsified. > I do not reply to the stupid puns with which you pollute sci.lang. Speaking of false statements, I don't usually make puns, not do I especially consider them "stupid", thought the latter is a value judgement. If you cannot produce several examples of "stupid puns" I have "polluted" sci.lang with, I'd appreciate a retraction. A full apology is not necessary. If you believe you are being libeled, why do you bother arguing when lawyers are available practically on every streetcorner? If you prefer to avoid such aggravation (you do exhibit symptoms of chronic aggravation, you know), why not simply killfile the offender(s)? If you use Firefox, there's a simple-to-use add-on: http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html (if you require assistance installing and/or using it, just ask) Now, back to our little exercise in logic: You say you are crossposting inadvertently, hence you are either 1) unaware of the relevant functionality of Google Groups or 2) aware of the relevant functionality but incompetent to use it. We know that you *are* aware of it though; several ARKers have gone to great lengths to explain it to you. You are still not using it; hence you are either 1) incompetent to use it or 2) choosing not to use it. You said that "sometimes [you] fail to notice" you are responding to a crossposted message; hence we can assume that since you do not like to interact with the regulars in a.r.k, you are not choosing not to use it. To recap, your statement: "So you think I should send replies to newsgroups the replyee doesn't read?" has been rigorously shown to have no basis in logic or fact. Indeed, you have admitted to a level of incompetence analogous to failing to use your GPS and other direction indicators while driving. *Now* do you understand why your actions generate such derision and mockery? (I considered inquiring for examples of crossposted replies from Reader that you "have" noticed are crossposted and removed said crossposts before replying, but that would be merely cruel; you've already demonstrated your skill level with citing posts.) Thank you for participating. Dr. HotSalt > > > > > It's even funnier watching him not know how to use *Google groups* > > > > > built-in functions frinst the list of groups *he* is posting to so he [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > past experience that he is prone to this particularly when interacting > with you, and yet you fail to check for crossposts? I'm not talking about "Reader." I'm talking about Funk. It usually turns out that he does it with perfectly innocuous messages that he twists in his perverse little mind -- such as claiming that pointing out Oxford U P's "schizophrenic" behavior is somehow a slur on persons diagnosed with schizophrenia. > You have admitted (at least partial) incompetence. That's > encouraging, I was starting to think you were a compleat stiff. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > have "polluted" sci.lang with, I'd appreciate a retraction. A full > apology is not necessary. Are you not aware that "you" is a plural pronoun? > If you believe you are being libeled, why do you bother arguing when > lawyers are available practically on every streetcorner? > > If you prefer to avoid such aggravation (you do exhibit symptoms of > chronic aggravation, you know), why not simply killfile the > offender(s)? You think being talked about behind one's back is preferable to having it out in the open? > If you use Firefox, there's a simple-to-use add-on: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You say you are crossposting inadvertently, hence you are either No, I did not say that. I said that I do not constantly have my guard up, because perhaps 75% of the time, Funk is a fairly normal participant in sci.lang. You might consider it a fault of google groups that when one goes to a new message, it positions the cursor at the end of the message, where a reply belongs, and in order to check the crosspostings, it would be necessary to scroll to the top of the message. > 1) unaware of the relevant functionality of Google Groups or > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are still not using it; hence you are either Because I failed to notice an initial crossposting, I am "not using it"? > 1) incompetent to use it or > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > like to interact with the regulars in a.r.k, you are not choosing not > to use it. What? > To recap, your statement: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you have admitted to a level of incompetence analogous to failing to > use your GPS and other direction indicators while driving. I have no GPS. I have known how to read maps for more than fifty years. > *Now* do you understand why your actions generate such derision and > mockery? I see that you are capable of twisting observed behavior and putting false interpretations on it. Are you a journalist? > (I considered inquiring for examples of crossposted replies from > Reader that you "have" noticed are crossposted and removed said > crossposts before replying, but that would be merely cruel; you've > already demonstrated your skill level with citing posts.) I'm certainly not going to go back to find examples to entertain you. > Thank you for participating. > > > > > > It's even funnier watching him not know how to use *Google groups* > > > > > > built-in functions frinst the list of groups *he* is posting to so he [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > I'm not talking about "Reader." I'm talking about Funk. As I said, you know who he is and what he is prone to, and yet... > It usually turns out that he does it with perfectly innocuous messages > that he twists in his perverse little mind -- such as claiming that > pointing out Oxford U P's "schizophrenic" behavior is somehow a slur > on persons diagnosed with schizophrenia. Are you saying you consider the usage of the adjective "schizophrenic" in that instance not to be an indication of a negative value judgment of Oxford U P's behavior? > > You have admitted (at least partial) incompetence. That's > > encouraging, I was starting to think you were a compleat stiff. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Are you not aware that "you" is a plural pronoun? "You lot" certainly is a plural, but "you" is ambiguous. You were talking to *me*, hence I assumed you meant me. I have no idea why you might complain to me, specifically, about what others post. Did you perhaps think *I* was in charge of a.r.k? > > If you believe you are being libeled, why do you bother arguing when > > lawyers are available practically on every streetcorner? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You think being talked about behind one's back is preferable to having > it out in the open? It *is* out in the open, but *you* would have the advantage of not having to see it (unless you chose to; the killfile can be turned on and off without affecting its contents) and hence not being aggravated, and also you'd be much less likely to inadvertently find yourself crossposting. > > If you use Firefox, there's a simple-to-use add-on: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > up, because perhaps 75% of the time, Funk is a fairly normal > participant in sci.lang. I'll remind you that I proposed: "you are...crossposting inadvertently..." and you responded: "As one of you just put it, BINGO." Perhaps you meant that you had hit your barely-return-to-base-with- remaining-fuel point? > You might consider it a fault of google groups that when one goes to a > new message, it positions the cursor at the end of the message, where > a reply belongs I note that like many people (including me), you intersperse your comments throughout the body of the quoted text where appropriate; therefore I do not assume that a reply "belongs" at the end of the quoted message. Incidentally, I intuit that you do not belong to any "real" Google Groups; that is, groups that are not part of the old Usenet hierarchy and only came into existence after Google absorbed it. In those groups (to which you must subscribe, usually with the permission of the group "owner") the cursor typically is by default positioned at the *top* of the quoted material, encouraging top-posting. I DESPISE top-posting. > ...in order to check the crosspostings, it would be > necessary to scroll to the top of the message. Why? those are listed in the box immediately below the upper "send" button, the "The group you are posting to is a Usenet group..." message box, and the "From" field. That's a different scroll bar entirely. As I compose this message I can see everything from the "From" field to the bottom "Send" and "Discard" buttons, including the group(s) this conversation is being posted to. > > 1) unaware of the relevant functionality of Google Groups or > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Because I failed to notice an initial crossposting, I am "not using > it"? Have you noticed which group(s) this conversation is being posted to? > > 1) incompetent to use it or > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What? Sorry, one excess "not" there. It should have read: > > You said that "sometimes [you] fail to notice" you are responding > > to a crossposted message; hence we can assume that since you do not > > like to interact with the regulars in a.r.k, you are choosing not > > to use it. You may read that last bit as "not choosing to use it" if you prefer. I would be interested in your preference vis-a-vis which group(s) this conversation is being posted to. > > To recap, your statement: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I have no GPS. I have known how to read maps for more than fifty > years. That would come under "other direction indicators". I used GPS as a specific example because it analogizes nicely to the relevant Google groups function. > > *Now* do you understand why your actions generate such derision and > > mockery? > > I see that you are capable of twisting observed behavior and putting > false interpretations on it. Again, have you noticed which group(s) this conversation is being posted to? > Are you a journalist? If this conversation were being held face-to-face I would borrow a glove, slap you in the face with it, and inquire as to your choice of weapons. > > (I considered inquiring for examples of crossposted replies from > > Reader that you "have" noticed are crossposted and removed said > > crossposts before replying, but that would be merely cruel; you've > > already demonstrated your skill level with citing posts.) > > I'm certainly not going to go back to find examples to entertain you. This isn't (solely) about my entertainment, it's about enhancing your newsgroup experience (and incidentally that of many others). Dr. HotSalt > > > > > > > It's even funnier watching him not know how to use *Google groups* > > > > > > > built-in functions frinst the list of groups *he* is posting to so he [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > As I said, you know who he is and what he is prone to, and yet... And yet he's so terribly clever about not indicating in his own crossposted message that he has crossposted it. It is only when I see the inanities and insults of you-lot that I discover he has done it. > > It usually turns out that he does it with perfectly innocuous messages > > that he twists in his perverse little mind -- such as claiming that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "schizophrenic" in that instance not to be an indication of a negative > value judgment of Oxford U P's behavior? (a) Is OUP a person? (b) Has OUP been diagnosed with a clinical condition? (c) Are you not aware that the word has entered ordinary English usage in a sense that has, in fact, nothing to do with the manifestations of the diagnosis in persons so diagnosed? > > > You have admitted (at least partial) incompetence. That's > > > encouraging, I was starting to think you were a compleat stiff. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > might complain to me, specifically, about what others post. Did you > perhaps think *I* was in charge of a.r.k? It's not my problem that you have such poor comprehension of English. It's also not my problem that you're so egotistical you think no one else reads what you write, or that someone would exclusively address you. > > > If you believe you are being libeled, why do you bother arguing when > > > lawyers are available practically on every streetcorner? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > aggravated, and also you'd be much less likely to inadvertently find > yourself crossposting. How is it an "advantage" to be talked about without one's knowing it? > > > If you use Firefox, there's a simple-to-use add-on: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > "As one of you just put it, BINGO." Are you not aware that the English language does not require the expression of quantified times? If I say "I eat cheese," does that mean to you that I eat only cheese, and I always eat cheese? If so, you are even stranger than you appear. > Perhaps you meant that you had hit your barely-return-to-base-with- > remaining-fuel point? What???? > > You might consider it a fault of google groups that when one goes to a > > new message, it positions the cursor at the end of the message, where [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > therefore I do not assume that a reply "belongs" at the end of the > quoted message. The contrast, as anyone familiar with the language and with posting practice knows, is with "top-posting," which, if you actually read Funk's messages, you will know he regularly rails against. > Incidentally, I intuit that you do not belong to any "real" Google > Groups; that is, groups that are not part of the old Usenet hierarchy > and only came into existence after Google absorbed it. In those groups > (to which you must subscribe, usually with the permission of the group > "owner") the cursor typically is by default positioned at the *top* of > the quoted material, encouraging top-posting. I DESPISE top-posting. Which subset of groups is "those" groups? No, I have never heard of such "'real' Google Groups." I belong to several moderated discussion lists, which are in the form of Yahoo groups. > > ...in order to check the crosspostings, it would be > > necessary to scroll to the top of the message. > > Why? those are listed in the box immediately below the upper "send" > button, the "The group you are posting to is a Usenet group..." > message box, and the "From" field. Which scrolls up off the screen quite soon. > That's a different scroll bar entirely. > > As I compose this message I can see everything from the "From" field > to the bottom "Send" and "Discard" buttons, including the group(s) > this conversation is being posted to. You must compose very short messages and enjoy directing your gaze very low (resulting in eyestrain and neckstrain, perhaps). > > > 1) unaware of the relevant functionality of Google Groups or > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Have you noticed which group(s) this conversation is being posted > to? Have you noticed which are the home groups of the people posting to this thread? > > > 1) incompetent to use it or > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I would be interested in your preference vis-a-vis which group(s) > this conversation is being posted to. What does "preference" have to do with it? > > > To recap, your statement: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > glove, slap you in the face with it, and inquire as to your choice of > weapons. Your inquisitorial style is that of a TV "journalist." > > > (I considered inquiring for examples of crossposted replies from > > > Reader that you "have" noticed are crossposted and removed said > > > crossposts before replying, but that would be merely cruel; you've > > > already demonstrated your skill level with citing posts.) > > > > > > > > It's even funnier watching him not know how to use *Google groups* > > > > > > > > built-in functions frinst the list of groups *he* is posting to so he [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > crossposted message that he has crossposted it. It is only when I see > the inanities and insults of you-lot that I discover he has done it. And yet you have the GPS excuse-me-I-meant-the-Newsgroups-you're- posting-to box right in front of you. > > > It usually turns out that he does it with perfectly innocuous messages > > > that he twists in his perverse little mind -- such as claiming that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (a) Is OUP a person? I wouldn't know, nor do I care enough to Google it. Neither is it relevant. > (b) Has OUP been diagnosed with a clinical condition? Again, I don't care, nor is it relevant. I'm not the one who applied the adjective "schizophrenic" to it. > (c) Are you not aware that the word has entered ordinary English usage > in a sense that has, in fact, nothing to do with the manifestations of > the diagnosis in persons so diagnosed? Please, let's leave implications for later. I didn't ask if you thought "OUP" exhibited symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, I asked: "Are you saying you consider the usage of the adjective 'schizophrenic' in that instance not to be an indication of a negative value judgment of Oxford U P's behavior?" Do you have an answer to *that* question? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. > > > > You have admitted (at least partial) incompetence. That's > > > > encouraging, I was starting to think you were a compleat stiff. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > It's not my problem that you have such poor comprehension of English. It *is* a problem that you are inordinately fond of using ambiguities to avoid expressing yourself clearly. Would that "you" be meant to indicate just me, specifically, the regulars of a.r.k, or the species in general? I will now point out that I did not ask you which "you lot" you meant when you wrote: "One you lot have started making false statements about me, I correct them." Since I have not noticed you using Briticisms (other than this instance of "you lot") I assumed you had intended to include "of" between "one" and "you lot" but simply forgot it and like me, you do not use a grammar checker. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that assumption? > It's also not my problem that you're so egotistical you think no one > else reads what you write That others besides thee and me might be reading this conversation is irrelevant to me; I'm talking to *you* specifically, not the denizens of any specific group, or any other subset of H. Sap., or any other species. If that's your excuse for complaining to me about what others write in hopes they (the perpetrators) will read your complaint, I will simply ignore such interjections in future. > ...[you're so egotistical you think] someone would exclusively address you. So many paradoxes, so little time. Do I take it you do not consider yourself to be "someone"? > > > > If you believe you are being libeled, why do you bother arguing when > > > > lawyers are available practically on every streetcorner? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > How is it an "advantage" to be talked about without one's knowing it? Well, perhaps you enjoy being aggravated and inadvertently crossposting. > > > > If you use Firefox, there's a simple-to-use add-on: > > > > >http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html > > > > > (if you require assistance installing and/or using it, just ask) I see (from elsewhere) you use Internet Exploder; never mind. > > > > Now, back to our little exercise in logic: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Are you not aware that the English language does not require the > expression of quantified times? It does not "require" them, but the capacity is there if you choose to use it. In fact, you did use it; you said that "sometimes [you] fail to notice" you are responding to a crossposted message. Later you go on to specify *which* times, namely when Adam Funk initiates a crosspost. Terseness can lose the nuances. > If I say "I eat cheese," does that > mean to you that I eat only cheese, and I always eat cheese? To use your analogy, you are "eating cheese" RIGHT NOW and have been all through this conversation. > If so, you are even stranger than you appear. Self-consistency might appear strange to you, given your proclivities. > > Perhaps you meant that you had hit your barely-return-to-base-with- > > remaining-fuel point? > > What???? Apparently, you were never in a military service. http://www.google.com/search?q=bingo+fuel > > > You might consider it a fault of google groups that when one goes to a > > > new message, it positions the cursor at the end of the message, where [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > practice knows, is with "top-posting," which, if you actually read > Funk's messages, you will know he regularly rails against. I am quite familiar with it, yes, and yes. He even has a nice .sig file about it. > > Incidentally, I intuit that you do not belong to any "real" Google > > Groups; that is, groups that are not part of the old Usenet hierarchy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which subset of groups is "those" groups? "Real" Google groups. Since they were the topic of the first clause in that sentence I'm slightly surprised you had to ask. > No, I have never heard of such "'real' Google Groups." I belong to > several moderated discussion lists, which are in the form of Yahoo > groups. http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=46368 > > > ...in order to check the crosspostings, it would be > > > necessary to scroll to the top of the message. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which scrolls up off the screen quite soon. Not during the composing of a message. OTOH you claim to use IE; your situation may be different. > > That's a different scroll bar entirely. As I compose this message I see two scroll bars; the one which allows me to scroll through the text I'm composing, and the one which allows me to scroll through the whole page. The blue (color may vary for you) box in which I'm composing this message fits entirely on my screen, including everything from the upper "send" and "discard" buttons to the bottom ones. That's only because this message is so long that (in Google groups' interface) it terminates early with the admonition "read more" which, when clicked, brings me to this page displaying only the message I'm replying to, and this reply I'm composing. Ordinarily there's another which allows me to scroll through all the messages in a given page. > > As I compose this message I can see everything from the "From" field > > to the bottom "Send" and "Discard" buttons, including the group(s) > > this conversation is being posted to. Note the difference to the current instance. > You must compose very short messages and enjoy directing your gaze > very low (resulting in eyestrain and neckstrain, perhaps). Did you reply to a "very short message"? Is this a "very short message"? Had you considered that my computer might display Google groups differently from what you see in IE? I did, once I became aware you were using IE (which I noted in another of your posts; apparently you couldn't be bothered to tell me my suggestion of the killfile add-on wasn't useful to you). > > > > 1) unaware of the relevant functionality of Google Groups or > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Have you noticed which are the home groups of the people posting to > this thread? No, I haven't. How does one determine a person's "home group"? You possibly refer to persons like specifically Adam Funk, presumably meaning his "home group" is a.r.k, yet you elsewhere describe him as a regular on either a.u.e or s.l. The list of newsgroups in the blue box is no help, sci.lang is first. > > > > 1) incompetent to use it or > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > What does "preference" have to do with it? Are you "choosing not to use it", or "not choosing to use it"? The first indicates an action, the second an inaction. However the second is ambiguous; it isn't clear whether the "chooser" is aware of the choice. Are you "eating cheese" intentionally, or inadvertently just now? > > > > To recap, your statement: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Your inquisitorial style is that of a TV "journalist." Your style is that of someone who is trying to avoid answering simple, direct questions. Dr. HotSalt > "One you lot have started making false statements about me, I > correct them." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > between "one" and "you lot" but simply forgot it and like me, you do > not use a grammar checker. ONCE you lot, moron. > > "One you lot have started making false statements about me, I > > correct them." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ONCE you lot, moron. MO-OM! He's reduced to calling names! Can I stop kicking him now? Dr. HotSalt > And yet he's so terribly clever about not indicating in his own > crossposted message that he has crossposted it. It is only when I see > the inanities and insults of you-lot that I discover he has done it. Rien oublié ni rien appris! SignatureThe generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. [Robert R. Coveyou] >> Are you saying you consider the usage of the adjective >> "schizophrenic" in that instance not to be an indication of a negative [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in a sense that has, in fact, nothing to do with the manifestations of > the diagnosis in persons so diagnosed? That usage is highly offensive to people with schizophrenia, those who treat it, and their friends and relatives. As you frequently say --- when it suits your purposes --- technical terms are defined by domain experts. Let's assume that you misused the term out of ignorance rather than malice. You have now been informed several times, so it is up to you to admit the mistake and apologize. If you refuse, then your treatment of Dave Hatunen and many others on the USENET demonstrates that you are a complete hypocrite because you think you are above the rules that you presume to impose on everyone else. SignatureThe generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. [Robert R. Coveyou] >Did you perhaps think *I* was in charge of a.r.k? YOU'RE NOT?!? sh.t - who's driving the death ray? Please say you didn't give the keys to Lots. Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request >>Did you perhaps think *I* was in charge of a.r.k? > >YOU'RE NOT?!? sh.t - who's driving the death ray? Please say you didn't >give the keys to Lots. I had control LAST week. It's not my problem right now. Dave Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. > You could use Forte Agent and never have to see > another of Adam Funks posts again if you chose. I suspect that would defeat the purpose for Mr. Daniels. SignatureShelly http://cat-sidh.net/blog On Mar 5, 7:21 pm, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:59:07 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > killfiling functions. You could use Forte Agent and never have to see > another of Adam Funks posts again if you chose. Are you really so stupid that you can't tell the difference between "having Netscape" and "having a Netscape-style nwesreader"? >On Mar 5, 7:21 pm, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:59:07 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Are you really so stupid that you can't tell the difference between >"having Netscape" and "having a Netscape-style nwesreader"? Doesn't matter. Agent doesn't download all posts. Which is more stupid? A. Posting a comment without checking if it is true, or, B. Posting a comment based on a misreading of the post being responded to? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> Are you really so stupid that you can't tell the difference between >> "having Netscape" and "having a Netscape-style nwesreader"? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > B. Posting a comment based on a misreading of the post being > responded to? C. Posting a comment to the UNSENET without checking your nonsense first. Etienne H. N. Rouette wrote: >>> Are you really so stupid that you can't tell the difference between >>> "having Netscape" and "having a Netscape-style nwesreader"? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > C. Posting a comment to the UNSENET without checking your nonsense first. Did you check the word UNSENET? SignatureJames >H. N. Rouette wrote: >>>> Are you really so stupid that you can't tell the difference between [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Did you check the word UNSENET? Is it nonsense? BW > James Hogg wrote: >> H. N. Rouette wrote: >>>> Which is more stupid? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Is it nonsense? It appears to be. SignatureSkitt (AmE) he of a little sense >> James Hogg wrote: >>> H. N. Rouette wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >It appears to be. Well then he probably checked it. BW >>>> H. N. Rouette wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > BW Indeed. Many credible sources, including: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-rules/23141-using-rules-mess-my-dm- 2.html "Yes. The United Nations SEnet (to give it its full name), which is a distributed network of hosts connected by the Internet Protocol (Next Generation) and administered by the United Nations from its worldwide headquarters in New York. The UNsenet is known for the myriad of services available, including telnet, FTP, the World Wide Web, and Realvideo." Etienne P.S. During this research to document my nonsense, I've come to the conclusion that other than Dr. Brian Eable of Perth, Austria, the leading world expert on UNSENET's use "in the wild" appears to be Dr. Hong Ooi of Asia. P.P.S. It may be of significance that both leading experts are from Asia/Oceania, although more research is required before we can confirm/deny this hypothesis. >>> C. Posting a comment to the UNSENET without checking your nonsense first. >> >>Did you check the word UNSENET? > > Is it nonsense? Well, I thought USERNET was the preferred term, but Swilson has been away for so long we're all getting sloppy. SignatureThe three-martini lunch is the epitome of American efficiency. Where else can you get an earful, a bellyful and a snootful at the same time? [Gerald Ford, 1978] >>On Mar 5, 7:21 pm, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >>> As he said, he's using Forte Agent. Forte Agent has nothing to do [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >A. Posting a comment without checking if it is true, or, >B. Posting a comment based on a misreading of the post being responded to? A, by a long shot. This is why we make sure to CHECK our nonsense before posting it to Usenet. Dave Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. > Meaning that you have the old Netscape-style newsreader that downloads > every message to your hard drive. I have to wonder what you think your browser is doing with the messages you're reading on the Web. ¬R >> Meaning that you have the old Netscape-style newsreader that downloads >> every message to your hard drive. > >I have to wonder what you think your browser is doing with the messages >you're reading on the Web. He has to clean out his newsreader every so often, because when they made his computer, they didn't take the weight of the electrons into account. Dave Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. >>> Meaning that you have the old Netscape-style newsreader that downloads >>> every message to your hard drive. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > He has to clean out his newsreader every so often, because when they made his > computer, they didn't take the weight of the electrons into account. Not to mention the weight of all the holes. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>> Meaning that you have the old Netscape-style newsreader that >>>> downloads every message to your hard drive. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not to mention the weight of all the holes. What about the weight of the Klein bottles? Will anyone think of the Klein bottles? Etienne >> Not to mention the weight of all the holes. > > What about the weight of the Klein bottles? Will anyone think of the Klein > bottles? my Klein bottle broke and spilled everything. now I gotta clean it all up. butting (sigh) Signaturehttp://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting All recipes for Australian wildlife, deer included, begin with "Carefully remove the venom sac..." -- Mark Edwards >>> Not to mention the weight of all the holes. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > my Klein bottle broke and spilled everything. now I gotta clean it > all up. Where are you going to store your universal solvent now, eh? SignatureNobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. [Mencken] >>>>> Meaning that you have the old Netscape-style newsreader that >>>>> downloads every message to your hard drive. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What about the weight of the Klein bottles? Will anyone think of the Klein > bottles? Klein bottles have no weight, of course. They are empty, they contain everything, including themselves and any scale you use to weight them, so they cannot have weight. SignatureI DID NOT SEE ELVIS Bart chalkboard Ep. 7G07 > They are empty, they contain everything, including themselves and any > scale you use to weight them, so they cannot have weight. So here's an interesting question, then: What's the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of a Klein bottle? >> They are empty, they contain everything, including themselves and any >> scale you use to weight them, so they cannot have weight. > >So here's an interesting question, then: What's the acceleration due to >gravity at the surface of a Klein bottle? It's a trick question, because Klein bottles do not suck. Dave Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. > Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's a trick question, because Klein bottles do not suck. A very one-sided opinion. David DeLaney filted: >>> They are empty, they contain everything, including themselves and any >>> scale you use to weight them, so they cannot have weight. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It's a trick question, because Klein bottles do not suck. Maybe you should check that statement with *Mrs* Klein....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >David DeLaney filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Maybe you should check that statement with *Mrs* Klein....r No can do. She's in another dimension. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.religion.kibology.] >>David DeLaney filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No can do. She's in another dimension. With voyeuristic intention? SignatureTHEY'RE IN UR BED, EATING UR DREAMZ > David DeLaney filted: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Maybe you should check that statement with *Mrs* Klein....r Who said that Klein is a male? David DeLaney filted: >>>Klein bottles do not suck. R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote: >> Maybe you should check that statement with *Mrs* Klein.... >Who said that Klein is a male? For THAT matter, who said "Mrs Klein" is a female? Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request > David DeLaney filted: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > For THAT matter, who said "Mrs Klein" is a female? You know, seen from the outside, one end of a Klein bottle is an "outie", and the other is an "innie". OTOH seen from the *inside*... NO CARRIER Dr. HotSalt >> David DeLaney filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > OTOH seen from the *inside*... ...it's too dark to read. Etienne >>> They are empty, they contain everything, including themselves and >>> any scale you use to weight them, so they cannot have weight. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > It's a trick question, because Klein bottles do not suck. Here are four more interesting questions: Given the stated premise that Klein bottles "contain everything", for a bottle with a finite radius of cross-section (say 1 metre), what is the mean density of its contents? How big does such a Klein bottle need to be before its surface is outside of its event horizon? What about outside of its Schwarzschild radius? Would such a Klein bottle be considered rotating or non-rotating? >>>> They are empty, they contain everything, including themselves and >>>> any scale you use to weight them, so they cannot have weight. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > outside of its event horizon? What about outside of its Schwarzschild > radius? Would such a Klein bottle be considered rotating or non-rotating? Ordinary Klein bottles contain all of space. A sufficiently large _rotating_ Klein bottle would contain all of time. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Peter Moylan filted: >> Here are four more interesting questions: Given the stated premise that >> Klein bottles "contain everything", for a bottle with a finite radius of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Ordinary Klein bottles contain all of space. A sufficiently large >_rotating_ Klein bottle would contain all of time. Perhaps one *does*...that would sort of close the book on cosmology, wouldn't it?...r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > Peter Moylan filted: >>Ordinary Klein bottles contain all of space. A sufficiently large >>_rotating_ Klein bottle would contain all of time. > > Perhaps one *does*...that would sort of close the book on cosmology, wouldn't > it?...r ITYM "let the genie out of the bottle", HTH, HAND. SignatureTwo of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix. I don't think that this is a coincidence. [anonymous] >>> Here are four more interesting questions: Given the stated premise that >>> Klein bottles "contain everything", for a bottle with a finite radius of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > wouldn't > it?...r Ack! DO NOT REPEAT DO NOT close the book on cosmology. I'd rather die a slow heat death. --oTTo-- ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.religion.kibology.] >>>> Here are four more interesting questions: Given the stated premise that >>>> Klein bottles "contain everything", for a bottle with a finite radius of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Ack! DO NOT REPEAT DO NOT close the book on cosmology. I'd rather > die a slow heat death. A Klein thermos bottle would prevent that. > --oTTo-- SignatureTHEY'RE IN UR BED, EATING UR DREAMZ >>>>> They are empty, they contain everything, including themselves and >>>>> any scale you use to weight them, so they cannot have weight. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Ordinary Klein bottles contain all of space. A sufficiently large > _rotating_ Klein bottle would contain all of time. What's not safe for work about Newcastle?! Does Australia have zero tolerance in the workplace? --oTTo-- [...] >> -- >> Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org >> For an e-mail address, see my web page. > > What's not safe for work about Newcastle?! Does Australia > have zero tolerance in the workplace? You've got the abbreviation wrong. It stands for Newcastle, Sydney, Wollongong. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You've got the abbreviation wrong. It stands for Newcastle, Sydney, > Wollongong. I once, out of mere devilment, invented a proverb about the 'Gong, but it didn't catch on. SignatureMike. > What's not safe for work about Newcastle?! Does Australia have zero > tolerance in the workplace? You forget the "T" from "ROTFL", too, don't you? >>> Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org >>> >> What's not safe for work about Newcastle?! Does Australia have zero >> tolerance in the workplace? >> > You forget the "T" from "ROTFL", too, don't you? It's ROT-13, not ROT-14. --oTTo-- ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.religion.kibology.] >> Here are four more interesting questions: Given the stated premise that >> Klein bottles "contain everything", for a bottle with a finite radius of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Ordinary Klein bottles contain all of space. A sufficiently large > _rotating_ Klein bottle would contain all of time. Somebody alert Al Gore! A Klein thermos bottle is the solution to global warming. SignatureTHEY'RE IN UR BED, EATING UR DREAMZ >What about the weight of the Klein bottles? Will anyone think of the >Klein bottles? Every time you masturbate into a Klein bottle, G... waitaminute. I don't want any more thoughts about masturbating "into" a Klein bottle. Mark-I-need-brain-bleach-now-Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:05:01 -0600, Mark Edwards <Mark-Edwards@comcast.net> wrote in <news:ZeidnYZzJp8wcA_WnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@supernews.com> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: [...] > Every time you masturbate into a Klein bottle, G... > waitaminute. I don't want any more thoughts about > masturbating "into" a Klein bottle. Besides, how many would admit to needing only 'ne kleine Flasche? Brian On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:07:53 -0500, Glenn Knickerbocker <NotR@bestweb.net> wrote in <news:3emdnWRysftxNwzWnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@bestweb.net> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: >> Meaning that you have the old Netscape-style newsreader >> that downloads every message to your hard drive. > I have to wonder what you think your browser is doing with > the messages you're reading on the Web. Presumably he's distinguishing between keeping and not keeping a local copy. Brian > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:07:53 -0500, Glenn Knickerbocker > <NotR@bestweb.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Presumably he's distinguishing between keeping and not > keeping a local copy. I think this is a fairly common area of confusion: some people only consider they are downloading when they are saving something to disk or other permanent storage. Newsgroups are odd in a way, because you can't compact the file, nor trash the messages, so it looks like email, but isn't, and I wonder just how many users think they are actually downloading from newsgroups when it is "really" downloaded to their server. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> Meaning that you have the old Netscape-style newsreader >>>> that downloads every message to your hard drive. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > actually downloading from newsgroups when it is "really" downloaded > to their server. I download the newsgroup headers and messages (with OE). Periodically I clear out the downloaded message bodies. In fact, I just did that, getting rid of approximately 40 Mb of stuff. SignatureSkitt (AmE) On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:32:16 +0800, Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com> wrote in <news:7vdpl3F1jvU1@mid.individual.net> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: >> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:07:53 -0500, Glenn Knickerbocker >> <NotR@bestweb.net> wrote in >> <news:3emdnWRysftxNwzWnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@bestweb.net> in >> sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: >>>> Meaning that you have the old Netscape-style newsreader >>>> that downloads every message to your hard drive. >>> I have to wonder what you think your browser is doing with >>> the messages you're reading on the Web. >> Presumably he's distinguishing between keeping and not >> keeping a local copy. > I think this is a fairly common area of confusion: some > people only consider they are downloading when they are > saving something to disk or other permanent storage. > Newsgroups are odd in a way, because you can't compact > the file, nor trash the messages, [...] Not sure what you mean here. I download all headers and then choose which bodies to download. Those bodies *can* then be trashed, and the file in which they're kept *must* be compacted occasionally. (Old bodies are automatically discarded as new ones are downloaded, but it's still necessary to compact the file from time to time, since it doesn't do automatic garbage collection.) Brian > On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:32:16 +0800, Robert Bannister > <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > necessary to compact the file from time to time, since it > doesn't do automatic garbage collection.) Then maybe you should use google groups, where none of that is done. On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 22:04:32 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:e281f087-d099-45a5-be0e-1fe4d063e82a@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: > On Mar 5, 9:39 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> > wrote: [...] >> I download all headers and then choose which bodies to >> download. Those bodies *can* then be trashed, and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> compact the file from time to time, since it doesn't do >> automatic garbage collection.) > Then maybe you should use google groups, where none of > that is done. Why the hell would I use an inconvenient, slow, poorly designed interface with a piss-poor editor when I have a newsreader that behaves almost exactly as I'd like it to behave?! I *want* at least the last month's worth of posts available locally. That makes it easy to review the earlier stages of a thread, especially since Dialog has a search function that -- unlike GG's -- actually works. Brian > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 22:04:32 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > stages of a thread, especially since Dialog has a search > function that -- unlike GG's -- actually works. If you think google groups doesn't have that, then you don't know anything about google groups. On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 06:31:45 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:6d461b22-de2a-4acd-97a9-472715bebdf9@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: >> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 22:04:32 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:e281f087-d099-45a5-be0e-1fe4d063e82a@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> >> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: >>> On Mar 5, 9:39 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> >>> wrote: >> [...] >>>> I download all headers and then choose which bodies to >>>> download. Those bodies *can* then be trashed, and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> compact the file from time to time, since it doesn't do >>>> automatic garbage collection.) >>> Then maybe you should use google groups, where none of >>> that is done. >> Why the hell would I use an inconvenient, slow, poorly >> designed interface with a piss-poor editor when I have a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> stages of a thread, especially since Dialog has a search >> function that -- unlike GG's -- actually works. > If you think google groups doesn't have that, then you > don't know anything about google groups. Evidently I know more about it than you. The Google group search has been going downhill for several years. >> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 22:04:32 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > On Mar 5, 9:39 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> >> > wrote: >> Why the hell would I use an inconvenient, slow, poorly >> designed interface with a piss-poor editor when I have a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >If you think google groups doesn't have that, then you don't know >anything about google groups. You didn't know anything about Forte Agent but it didn't stop you froma making a dumb claim. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 22:04:32 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >You didn't know anything about Forte Agent but it didn't stop you >froma making a dumb claim. Is there anything that stops him from making dumb claims? bW > On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 06:31:45 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > You didn't know anything about Forte Agent but it didn't stop you > froma making a dumb claim. I knew from the poster who mentioned Forte Agent that he had a trash folder full of discarded newsgroup postings. It is thus Netscape-like. Postings read through google groups don't have to be sent to a trash folder or deleted. >> You didn't know anything about Forte Agent but it didn't stop you >> froma making a dumb claim. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It is thus Netscape-like. Not really. Netscape doesn't by default have any such folder. On Mar 7, 9:18 pm, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: > >> You didn't know anything about Forte Agent but it didn't stop you > >> froma making a dumb claim. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Not really. Netscape doesn't by default have any such folder. Who said anything about Netscape having its own personal trash folder, let alone by default? It is Netscape-like in that, back when I had Netscape on Mac OS 9, and dial-up, before 2005, all newsgroup messages were downloaded to my hard drive, and I had to myself discard them. >On Mar 7, 9:18 pm, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- >newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >dial-up, before 2005, all newsgroup messages were downloaded to my >hard drive, and I had to myself discard them. Which is not the case with Agent, so how is Agent "Netscape-like"? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > >On Mar 7, 9:18 pm, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- > >newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: > >> >> You didn't know anything about Forte Agent but it didn't stop you > >> >> froma making a dumb claim. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Which is not the case with Agent, so how is Agent "Netscape-like"? Try reading this very message, beginning with the first contribution written by me (beginning "I knew from"). > On Mar 7, 9:18 pm, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- > newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > dial-up, before 2005, all newsgroup messages were downloaded to my > hard drive, and I had to myself discard them. You must have somehow set it to do that because I had Netscape on OS 9 and at no time did it save messages to my hard disk. It certainly was not the default. SignatureRob Bannister >>> I knew from the poster who mentioned Forte Agent that he had a trash >>> folder full of discarded newsgroup postings. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Who said anything about Netscape having its own personal trash folder, > let alone by default? You did. Again, for your edification I've left your statement saying that quoted above. On Mar 8, 9:28 pm, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: > >>> I knew from the poster who mentioned Forte Agent that he had a trash > >>> folder full of discarded newsgroup postings. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You did. Again, for your edification I've left your statement saying > that quoted above. It's clear from your many recent crosspostings that you have a great deal of trouble understanding written English. I made no such statement whatsoever. Saying that something is "X-like" explicitly says that it is not, in fact, "X." In *H.M.S. Pinafore*, characters move with "cat-like tread." If I have a pet cat, I do not have a "cat-like pet" I have an actual pet cat. Did you take on the name "Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" in order to impress the astronomers with a name like that of Neil de Grasse Tyson? Cool! Another objectivist. > >>> I knew from the poster who mentioned Forte Agent that he had a trash > >>> folder full of discarded newsgroup postings. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You did. Again, for your edification I've left your statement saying > that quoted above. It's clear from your many recent crosspostings that you have a great deal of trouble understanding written English. I made no such statement whatsoever. Saying that something is "X-like" explicitly says that it is not, in fact, "X." In *H.M.S. Pinafore*, characters move with "cat-like tread." If I have a pet cat, I do not have a "cat-like pet" I have an actual pet cat. Did you take on the name "Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" in order to impress the astronomers with a name like that of Neil de Grasse Tyson? >>>>> I knew from the poster who mentioned Forte Agent that he had a trash >>>>> folder full of discarded newsgroup postings. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > deal of trouble understanding written English. I made no such > statement whatsoever. Are we to deduce that Otto Bahn and Peter Daniels are the same person? I never knew that. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>>>> I knew from the poster who mentioned Forte Agent that he had a trash >>>>>> folder full of discarded newsgroup postings. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Are we to deduce that Otto Bahn and Peter Daniels are the same person? I > never knew that. A is not ¬A!!! --oTTo-- >>>>>> I knew from the poster who mentioned Forte Agent that he had a trash >>>>>> folder full of discarded newsgroup postings. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Are we to deduce that Otto Bahn and Peter Daniels are the same person? I > never knew that. No, what we can deduce, however, is that either he is not using Quotefix with his OE, or it's not working properly. pjk > It's clear from your many recent crosspostings that you have a great > deal of trouble understanding written English. I made no such [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have > a pet cat, I do not have a "cat-like pet" I have an actual pet cat. If it walks like a duck, and swims.... SignatureTwo of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix. I don't think that this is a coincidence. [anonymous] >> It's clear from your many recent crosspostings that you have a great >> deal of trouble understanding written English. I made no such [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If it walks like a duck, and swims.... ITYM "and weighs the same as..." butting (HTH!) Signaturehttp://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting 'Damn and blast British Telecom,' shouted Dirk, the words coming easily from force of habit. -- Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >If it walks like a duck, and swims.... ...staple it to the river? Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request >>If it walks like a duck, and swims.... > > ...staple it to the river? Staple me to the river, clip me in the water Pressing me down, pressing me down --oTTo-- > On Mar 8, 9:28 pm, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- > newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > statement whatsoever. Saying that something is "X-like" explicitly > says that it is not, in fact, "X." Can you walk me through this? As near as I can tell: Netscape does not have a trash folder. Forte agent has a trash folder Forte Agent is therefore ["It is thus"] Netscape-like. Do I have the syllogism correct? SignatureEvan 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/ > > On Mar 8, 9:28 pm, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- > > newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Do I have the syllogism correct? How, from > >>> I knew from the poster who mentioned Forte Agent that he had a trash > >>> folder full of discarded newsgroup postings. do you get the idea that I thought Forte Agent has its own personal dedicated trash folder, as opposed to the trash folder that's on everyone's desktop? Do I need to look back through many steps of snippage to discover the original posting (by whoever) describing the trash folder to show that it didn't say it was a dedicated Forte Agent trash folder as opposed to the garden-variety trash folder found on everyone's desktop? > > > On Mar 8, 9:28 pm, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- > > > newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > it didn't say it was a dedicated Forte Agent trash folder as opposed > to the garden-variety trash folder found on everyone's desktop?- Here it is, after an ERK-like search. It was Hatunen: > I'm using Forte Agent and all I had to do was click on the > message ID and it was found in my Trash folder. What in those two lines indicates that "my Trash folder" referred to "my special dedicated Forte Agent Trash folder" as opposed to his garden-variety trash folder as found on everyone's desktop? > On Mar 10, 6:53 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote: >> On Mar 10, 6:40 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum >> <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote: >>>> On Mar 8, 9:28 pm, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard >>>> <J.deBoynePollard- newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: >>>>>>>> I knew from the poster who mentioned Forte >>>>>>>> Agent that he had a trash folder full of >>>>>>>> discarded newsgroup postings. It is thus >>>>>>>> Netscape-like. >>>>>>> Not really. Netscape doesn't by default have >>>>>>> any such folder. >>>>>> Who said anything about Netscape having its own >>>>>> personal trash folder, let alone by default? >>>>> You did. Again, for your edification I've left >>>>> your statement saying that quoted above. >>>> It's clear from your many recent crosspostings that >>>> you have a great deal of trouble understanding >>>> written English. I made no such statement >>>> whatsoever. Saying that something is "X-like" >>>> explicitly says that it is not, in fact, "X." >>> Can you walk me through this? As near as I can tell: >>> Netscape does not have a trash folder. Forte agent >>> has a trash folder Forte Agent is therefore ["It is >>> thus"] Netscape-like. >>> Do I have the syllogism correct? >> How, from >>>>>> I knew from the poster who mentioned Forte >>>>>> Agent that he had a trash folder full of >>>>>> discarded newsgroup postings. >> do you get the idea that I thought Forte Agent has its >> own personal dedicated trash folder, as opposed to the >> trash folder that's on everyone's desktop? Probably by taking for granted a not uncommon level of basic familiarity with news clients. No, they don't all have trash folders, but many do, especially if they're dual-purpose e-mail and news clients. >> Do I need to look back through many steps of snippage >> to discover the original posting (by whoever) >> describing the trash folder to show that it didn't say >> it was a dedicated Forte Agent trash folder as opposed >> to the garden-variety trash folder found on everyone's >> desktop?- > Here it is, after an ERK-like search. It was Hatunen: >> I'm using Forte Agent and all I had to do was click on >> the message ID and it was found in my Trash folder. > What in those two lines indicates that "my Trash folder" > referred to "my special dedicated Forte Agent Trash > folder" as opposed to his garden-variety trash folder as > found on everyone's desktop? It might have occurred to you that the program was much more likely to be written to check its own folders than to look in a system folder. Brian >> On Mar 10, 6:53 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >likely to be written to check its own folders than to look >in a system folder. On the other hand, PTD does have a valid point. I did not make it clear that the Trash folder was, in fact, Agent's Trash folder. It presumed a certain level of knowledge about the characteristics of various newsreaders on PTD's part and I should have known better. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> > On Mar 8, 9:28 pm, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- >> > newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > dedicated trash folder, as opposed to the trash folder that's on > everyone's desktop? It was the only semi-plausible reading I could get from "It is thus Netscape-like". The only referents that seemed possible for "it" were "Forte Agent" and "trash folder", and the former seemed to be the only one of the two that could be described as "Netscape-like". So clearly something about someone who uses Forte Agent saying that he had a trash folder full of discarded newsgroup postings led you to conclude that Forte Agent was Netscape-like. Had you just come out and said "No, you misunderstand. What I meant is that it's a property of Netscape that its users wind up with trash folders on their desktops full of discarded newsgroup postings", people would have understood what you meant and why what you said wasn't illogical. They may well have told you that you're wrong, but they wouldn't have to wonder at your reasoning. > Do I need to look back through many steps of snippage to discover the > original posting (by whoever) describing the trash folder to show that > it didn't say it was a dedicated Forte Agent trash folder as opposed > to the garden-variety trash folder found on everyone's desktop? Nah, you could just tell us what you meant instead of leaving us to play "Bring me a rock". It would save everybody a fair bit of hassle. SignatureEvan 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/ >do you get the idea that I thought Forte Agent has its own personal >dedicated trash folder, as opposed to the trash folder that's on >everyone's desktop? Everyone? I do not have a trash folder on my desktop. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog >>do you get the idea that I thought Forte Agent has its own personal >>dedicated trash folder, as opposed to the trash folder that's on >>everyone's desktop? > > Everyone? I do not have a trash folder on my desktop. Back in some primitive version of Windoze, I managed to somehow delete my trash folder, which made Windows really irritable at times. --oTTo-- > Back in some primitive version of Windoze, I managed to > somehow delete my trash folder, which made Windows really > irritable at times. ...and you put your sims through a never-ending cosmological nightmare. SignatureI spend almost as much time figuring out what's wrong with my computer as I do actually using it. Networked software, especially, requires frequent updates and maintenance, all of which gets in the way of doing routine work. (Stoll 1995) Adam Funk filted: >> Back in some primitive version of Windoze, I managed to >> somehow delete my trash folder, which made Windows really >> irritable at times. > >...and you put your sims through a never-ending cosmological >nightmare. If you can't kill them, you need a Sims-Anthony to wish them into the cornfield....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >>>do you get the idea that I thought Forte Agent has its own personal >>>dedicated trash folder, as opposed to the trash folder that's on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > somehow delete my trash folder, which made Windows really > irritable at times. Define "primitive," please. I'm running Windows Vista on two different machines, and neither has a trash folder on the desktop. Nor a recycle bin, for that matter. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:30:29 -0400: "Shelly" <shelly@cat-sidh.net>: in sci.lang: >Define "primitive," please. I'm running Windows Vista on two different >machines, and neither has a trash folder on the desktop. Nor a recycle >bin, for that matter. Mine has, the latter. Windows Vista Home Edition. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:30:29 -0400: "Shelly" <shelly@cat-sidh.net>: in > sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Mine has, the latter. Windows Vista Home Edition. That's easily remedied, despite the fact that our department IT guy insisted otherwise. (Why, yes, I *do* like to maintain a clean desktop.) SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog >>>Define "primitive," please. I'm running Windows Vista on two different >>>machines, and neither has a trash folder on the desktop. Nor a recycle [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's easily remedied, despite the fact that our department IT guy > insisted otherwise. (Why, yes, I *do* like to maintain a clean desktop.) My desktop is so cluttered I can't even see it. --oTTo-- >> Back in some primitive version of Windoze, I managed to >> somehow delete my trash folder, which made Windows really [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > machines, and neither has a trash folder on the desktop. Nor a recycle > bin, for that matter. well, obviously. Otto deleted them, back in '96. you haven't -noticed- how Windows has been irritable ever since? butting Signaturehttp://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting If you don't know what you're doing in C, you get a compiler error or a segfault. If you don't know what you're doing in PHP, you call it phpBB. -- Matt Palmer >>> Back in some primitive version of Windoze, I managed to >>> somehow delete my trash folder, which made Windows really [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > well, obviously. Otto deleted them, back in '96. you haven't > -noticed- how Windows has been irritable ever since? That's like someone noticing that I've got PMS. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog >>>>do you get the idea that I thought Forte Agent has its own personal >>>>dedicated trash folder, as opposed to the trash folder that's on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> somehow delete my trash folder, which made Windows really >> irritable at times. > Define "primitive," please. I'm running Windows Vista on two different > machines, and neither has a trash folder on the desktop. Nor a recycle > bin, for that matter. In XP you can control this by right clicking the desktop, going to properties and in the resulting control panel one of the options (perhaps hidden under "manage desktop" or "Advanced" let you set which built-in icons to show, allowing you to turn off, for example, the recycle bin, My Computer, or others. I actually prefer having the trash turned off in Windows. I have all of them disabled. My desktop shows a shortcut to VLC and shortcuts to various folders containing videos and that is all. Next time I am on that machine I can look. Likely someone else will give the specifics before then. I tried to google for you, but all the instructions I found online involved editing the registry file. SignatureI WILL NOT SPIN THE TURTLE Bart chalkboard Ep. 8F21 >>>>>do you get the idea that I thought Forte Agent has its own personal >>>>>dedicated trash folder, as opposed to the trash folder that's on [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I tried to google for you, but all the instructions I found online > involved editing the registry file. Tried Googling for what, exactly? I do not have a recycling bin on my desktop, and I do not want a recycling bin on my desktop. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog > Tried Googling for what, exactly? I do not have a recycling bin on my > desktop, and I do not want a recycling bin on my desktop. Oh. My mistake, I thought you were complaining about the lack, not crowing about it :) I wouldn't mind having the trash on the desktop if it would stay put, but as it migrates about the desktop of its own accord, I find it less than useful. Signature'Are you Death?' IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. --The Fifth Elephant >> Tried Googling for what, exactly? I do not have a recycling bin on >> my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > crowing > about it :) It's an easy mistake, given that I spend 99.99% of my time complaining. > I wouldn't mind having the trash on the desktop if it would stay put, > but > as it migrates about the desktop of its own accord, I find it less > than > useful. But does it wander far? SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog >>> Tried Googling for what, exactly? I do not have a recycling bin on >>> my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> crowing >> about it :) > It's an easy mistake, given that I spend 99.99% of my time complaining. >> I wouldn't mind having the trash on the desktop if it would stay put, >> but >> as it migrates about the desktop of its own accord, I find it less >> than >> useful. > But does it wander far? Far enough. If it's not in the far lower-right corner, it's useless to me. Signature'What shall we do?' said Twoflower. 'Panic?' said Rincewind hopefully. --The Light Fantastic >> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message [...] >>> I wouldn't mind having the trash on the desktop if it would stay put, >>> but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Far enough. If it's not in the far lower-right corner, it's useless to > me. That's where I keep mine, but it stays put--XP at work, Vista at home. SignatureAl in St. Lou >>> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message > [...] >>>> I wouldn't mind having the trash on the desktop if it would stay put, >>>> but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Far enough. If it's not in the far lower-right corner, it's useless to >> me. > That's where I keep mine, but it stays put--XP at work, > Vista at home. You must never launch anything that switches screen resolution. Like, say, a game. Or a video player. You know, the things I use Windtendos for. SignatureThe voice of the majority is no proof of justice. >>>> "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > say, a game. Or a video player. You know, the things I use Windtendos > for. You are correct. SignatureAl in St. Lou > I wouldn't mind having the trash on the desktop if it would stay put, but > as it migrates about the desktop of its own accord, I find it less than > useful. Try post-its, or close the window. SignatureI worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my daughter] will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?' [Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/ ] Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>: >>I'm running Windows Vista on two different machines, and neither has >>a trash folder on the desktop. Nor a recycle bin, for that matter. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I have all of them disabled. My desktop shows a shortcut to VLC and >shortcuts to various folders containing videos and that is all. I also have them all disabled. My desktop is entirely blank. It's always covered by a maximised PowerDesk window anyway. Commonly-used shortcuts go in the Quick Launch bar, which is more convenient that the desktop because it's permanently visible. >Next time I am on that machine I can look. Likely someone else will give >the specifics before then. > >I tried to google for you, but all the instructions I found online >involved editing the registry file. You can do it without editing the registry. Download Microsoft's TweakUI program. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You can do it without editing the registry. Download Microsoft's TweakUI > program. In Vista, you can right-click the desktop, choose "Personalize," and then click on the link "Change Desktop Icons." At that point, you can uncheck the boxes for the icons you don't want on your desktop. The Recycle Bin is the only one I have checked. SignatureAl in St. Lou > > Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>: > >> In message <hnnq4n$b4...@news.eternal-september.org> Shelly [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > icons you don't want on your desktop. The Recycle Bin is the > only one I have checked. Mty Recycle Bin disappeared a few weeks ago (Vista). (I suspect that when right-clicking to get to Empty Recycling Bin, I overshot and got Delete instead.) I found that it is still listed on the left when Documents is opened as a window, and if I drag it onto the Desktop, a Shortcut to it is created -- but the Bin icon itself is nowhere to be found. That Personalize box is checked. > Mty Recycle Bin disappeared a few weeks ago (Vista). (I suspect that > when right-clicking to get to Empty Recycling Bin, I overshot and got > Delete instead.) I'm on Windows 7, but I don't have a "Delete" option on my Recycle Bin (and I don't remember there being one on Vista, either). Since, as you note, it's controlled by the "Personalize" box, and since the system requires there to be a deleted items folder (whether or not there's an icon on the desktop), it would be kind of silly to have it. (Not to mention that the obvious meaning would be that the Recycle Bin would be put into the Recycle Bin.) > I found that it is still listed on the left when Documents is opened > as a window, and if I drag it onto the Desktop, a Shortcut to it is > created -- but the Bin icon itself is nowhere to be found. That > Personalize box is checked. If you haven't tried it, you might try unchecking it (and getting out of the dialog boxes) and then going back in and checking it again. That might reset it to a default position if the problem is that it got confused about where it is and is drawing it somewhere off the screen. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |He who will not reason, is a bigot; 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |he who cannot is a fool; and he who Palo Alto, CA 94304 |dares not is a slave. | Sir William Drummond kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > I'm on Windows 7, but I don't have a "Delete" option on my Recycle Bin > (and I don't remember there being one on Vista, either). 1. Highlight Recycle Bin 2. Press Delete key 3. Click "Yes" It's still there (as in, you haven't deleted it out of existence), and deleted stuff goes goes to it. It just won't show up on your desktop. You can also go to Personalize -> Change desktop icons -> uncheck Recycle Bin. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog > > Mty Recycle Bin disappeared a few weeks ago (Vista). (I suspect that > > when right-clicking to get to Empty Recycling Bin, I overshot and got [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > got confused about where it is and is drawing it somewhere off the > screen. That sequence of steps did it, thank you. It appeared in the upper left corner. But the other icons (which are mostly in 2 1/2 columns along the left edge) got rearranged -- and not in either alphabetical order or order of creation! >But the other icons (which are mostly in 2 1/2 columns along the left >edge) got rearranged -- and not in either alphabetical order or order >of creation! That's what you get for having a bunch of icons on your desktop. Learn to use your Quick Launch toolbar, dude! Alsotoo, you might want to make sure that Auto Arrange is unchecked. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog > >But the other icons (which are mostly in 2 1/2 columns along the left > >edge) got rearranged -- and not in either alphabetical order or order > >of creation! > > That's what you get for having a bunch of icons on your desktop. Learn > to use your Quick Launch toolbar, dude! The icons are too small. > Alsotoo, you might want to make sure that Auto Arrange is unchecked. If it were on, wouldn't they be arranging themselves every time I added or removed one? I do have the line-up-in-neat-ranks-and-files thing on, though. >The icons are too small. You can embiggen them. Well, maybe *you* can't, but one can. > Alsotoo, you might want to make sure that Auto Arrange is unchecked. >If it were on, wouldn't they be arranging themselves every time I >added or removed one? I don't know, but if you had a curious fiber in your body, you might be interested in investigating further yourself. >I do have the line-up-in-neat-ranks-and-files >thing on, though. Align to Grid, which is not the same thing as Auto Arrange. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog > >The icons are too small. > > You can embiggen them. Well, maybe *you* can't, but one can. Then they wouldn't fit. Note that you _can't_ embiggen the icons on the Quick Access Toolbars in Office. > > Alsotoo, you might want to make sure that Auto Arrange is unchecked. > >If it were on, wouldn't they be arranging themselves every time I > >added or removed one? > > I don't know, but if you had a curious fiber in your body, you might be > interested in investigating further yourself. Why? Why would I want my icons rearranging themselves? > >I do have the line-up-in-neat-ranks-and-files > >thing on, though. > > Align to Grid, which is not the same thing as Auto Arrange. That's why I said "though." On Mar 17, 1:45 pm, "Shelly" <she...@cat-sidh.net> wrote: >Then they wouldn't fit. Sure they would. Embiggen your Taskbar, or maybe move it to the side. Or don't. You are the one with the wandering icon problem, not me, so if you would prefer to put up with the annoyance of having your icons move around, instead of fixing the problem, please *do* knock yourself out. >Note that you _can't_ embiggen the icons on the Quick Access Toolbars >in Office. Why in the world would I want to make note of that? > Why? Why would I want my icons rearranging themselves? Do you? I thought not, so I figured you might want to turn *off* Auto Arrange, if it was turned on. But if you are not interested in investigating further, that's certainly your prerogative. > Align to Grid, which is not the same thing as Auto Arrange. > That's why I said "though." At this point, I am loath to assume anything where you and knowledge of computers intersect. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog > On Mar 17, 1:45 pm, "Shelly" <she...@cat-sidh.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > At this point, I am loath to assume anything where you and knowledge of > computers intersect. Don't you know that if you fall into a quagmire, you should run fast before you sink but, if you do pause and sink, you shouldn't keep swimming vigorously? pjk > On Mar 17, 1:45 pm, "Shelly" <she...@cat-sidh.net> wrote: > > >Then they wouldn't fit. > > Sure they would. Embiggen your Taskbar, or maybe move it to the side. What _are_ you talking about???? There is no way to "Embiggen" the taskbar, and since it stretches across the entire bottom of the screen, it cannot be moved to a side. > Or don't. You are the one with the wandering icon problem, not me, so Where did you get that idea? Where did I suggest I have a "wandering icon problem"? I said that when my Recycle Bin icon reappeared after an absence of a few weeks, it did so in the upper left corner, and icons moved away from where they had been. > if you would prefer to put up with the annoyance of having your icons > move around, instead of fixing the problem, please *do* knock yourself > out. ??? > >Note that you _can't_ embiggen the icons on the Quick Access Toolbars > >in Office. > > Why in the world would I want to make note of that? Because you seem to think that you can, but you are wrong. > > Why? Why would I want my icons rearranging themselves? > > Do you? I thought not, so I figured you might want to turn *off* Auto > Arrange, if it was turned on. But if you are not interested in > investigating further, that's certainly your prerogative. I'll ask again. Since my icons do not "arrange themselves," why would you suppose it was turned on? > > Align to Grid, which is not the same thing as Auto Arrange. > > That's why I said "though." > > At this point, I am loath to assume anything where you and knowledge of > computers intersect. I am loath to have you assume anything at all about me, since your assumptions are invariably wrong. >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote >> On Mar 17, 1:45 pm, "Shelly" <she...@cat-sidh.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >taskbar, and since it stretches across the entire bottom of the >screen, it cannot be moved to a side. Nonsense. It stretches up up up JUUUUUST fine. ...of course, yours might not stretch up quite as far as ours. That's nothing to be ashamed of. It can also be moved to either side of the screen, or even up to across-the-top. Dave "it's all in plato, ALL in plato" DeLaney Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:00:24 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:5646e896-3d1d-4547-820b-30953442d159@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> messagenews:08e308b4-35ad-4775-8e1e-20ff8f149fb1@z4g2000y >> qa.googlegroups.com... On Mar 17, 1:45 pm, "Shelly" >> <she...@cat-sidh.net> wrote: >>>Then they wouldn't fit. >> Sure they would. Embiggen your Taskbar, or maybe move it to the side. > What _are_ you talking about???? There is no way to "Embiggen" the > taskbar, and since it stretches across the entire bottom of the > screen, it cannot be moved to a side. It can be expanded vertically if you unlock it. [...] Brian > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:00:24 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > It can be expanded vertically if you unlock it. It's not locked. How? On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:33:09 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:00183e69-b5a3-4a1d-bf8d-4f7f2b499620@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english: [...] >> [The taskbar] can be expanded vertically if you unlock it. > It's not locked. How? Right click on it. Uncheck 'Lock taskbar' if it's checked. Position the cursor at the top edge of the taskbar; when the cursor turns into a doubleheaded vertical arrow, hold down the left mouse button and move it up, just as you'd resize a window. Brian > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:33:09 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Right click on it. Uncheck 'Lock taskbar' if it's checked. As I said, it's not. > Position the cursor at the top edge of the taskbar; when the > cursor turns into a doubleheaded vertical arrow, hold down > the left mouse button and move it up, just as you'd resize a > window. All that does is increase the height of the bar itself. The icons stay the same size and make a column instead of a row. Net result is only to decrease the working area of the screen. >All that does is increase the height of the bar itself. The icons stay >the same size and make a column instead of a row. Net result is only >to decrease the working area of the screen. Focus, please? Now you have plenty of room to embiggen those Quick Launch buttons that you said there wouldn't be room for, onna counta the taskbar was too eensie weensie. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog > >All that does is increase the height of the bar itself. The icons stay > >the same size and make a column instead of a row. Net result is only [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Launch buttons that you said there wouldn't be room for, onna counta the > taskbar was too eensie weensie. Ok, Dudette, your solution for tiny buttons was to embiggen the taskbar. Now you claim that the buttons can be enlarged in that embiggened taskbar. How? >Ok, Dudette, your solution for tiny buttons was to embiggen the >taskbar. No, that would be ridiculous. My solution for tiny buttons was to embiggen the buttons. Please do pay attention! >Now you claim No, I didn't just now start claiming that, oh temporally challenged one. > that the buttons can be enlarged in that embiggened taskbar. How? I have provided that information twice already. Again, *do* pay attention, pleaseandthanks. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog >>> All that does is increase the height of the bar itself. The icons stay >>> the same size and make a column instead of a row. Net result is only [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > taskbar. Now you claim that the buttons can be enlarged in that > embiggened taskbar. How? Oh, for crissake, isn't it time to stop this endless petty bickering with people who are trying to help you and who may or may not be using the same version of operating system as you do and open the bloody manual that came with your operating system or borrow Windows for Dummies and read the chapters on basic Windows mouse operations, keyboard shortcuts, and customisation options. pjk > >>> All that does is increase the height of the bar itself. The icons stay > >>> the same size and make a column instead of a row. Net result is only [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Windows mouse operations, keyboard shortcuts, and customisation > options. No one is "trying to help me." (Except ERK, who told me how to get my Recycle Bin back.) The others are trying to mock me because I have no interest in their obsessions with the most fashionable software. >> >>> All that does is increase the height of the bar itself. The icons stay >> >>> the same size and make a column instead of a row. Net result is only [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Recycle Bin back.) The others are trying to mock me because I have no >interest in their obsessions with the most fashionable software. They are trying to help you. The mistake they are making is in thinking that you want help. BW > They are trying to help you. The mistake they are making is in > thinking that you want help. Not all of us. At least one of us realizes that he doesn't want help and therefore has no interest in helping him. But the "Vista can't do X" crap is just too ridiculous to ignore. For now. SignatureShelly http://cat-sidh.net/blog >>>>>> All that does is increase the height of the bar itself. The >>>>>> icons stay the same size and make a column instead of a row. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > BW For certain meanings of "want". SignatureFrank ess Peter T. Daniels (read in sci.lang): > No one is "trying to help me." (Except ERK, who told me how to get my > Recycle Bin back.) The others are trying to mock me because I have no > interest in their obsessions with the most fashionable software. How is Windows "fashionable software"? Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 1: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fdkEnsizPg> My favourite # 14: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dShxBilGasc> > No one is "trying to help me." (Except ERK, who told me how to get > my Recycle Bin back.) At least when acknowledging that I'm being helpful you could avoid using a nickname that I don't use and am on record as stating that I don't like. SignatureEvan 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 >> No one is "trying to help me." (Except ERK, who told me how to get >> my Recycle Bin back.) > >At least when acknowledging that I'm being helpful you could avoid >using a nickname that I don't use and am on record as stating that I >don't like. You're not the boss of him. BW > > No one is "trying to help me." (Except ERK, who told me how to get > > my Recycle Bin back.) > > At least when acknowledging that I'm being helpful you could avoid > using a nickname that I don't use and am on record as stating that I > don't like. (a) Not in sci.lang you're not, and (b) it's your initials. Doesn't look like a nickname. When you made it clear that you didn't like it, did Toner Coopey stop using it? >> > No one is "trying to help me." (Except ERK, who told me how to get >> > my Recycle Bin back.) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >When you made it clear that you didn't like it, did Toner Coopey stop >using it? See? You're not the boss of him, Evan. BW >>> > No one is "trying to help me." (Except ERK, who told me how to get >>> > my Recycle Bin back.) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >See? You're not the boss of him, Evan. Peter seems bound and determined to demonstrate he's an unmitigated a.s. >> > No one is "trying to help me." (Except ERK, who told me how to get >> > my Recycle Bin back.) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >When you made it clear that you didn't like it, did Toner Coopey stop >using it? I never started using it. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> > No one is "trying to help me." (Except ERK, who told me how to get >>> > my Recycle Bin back.) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I never started using it. There's mainly one person around here who still has the juvenile habit of making fun of people's names, and it's not you. SignatureLe beau est aussi utile que l'utile. [Victor Hugo] Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net>: >No one is "trying to help me." Really? You don't think I'm trying to help you? What *do* you think I'm doing, then? SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > The others are trying to mock me because I have no interest in their >obsessions with the most fashionable software. ITYM "The others are succeeding in mocking me because I have no understanding of any software." Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request >> >>> All that does is increase the height of the bar itself. The icons stay >> >>> the same size and make a column instead of a row. Net result is only [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Recycle Bin back.) The others are trying to mock me because I have no >interest in their obsessions with the most fashionable software. I've given you several suggestions. The mocking comes because you express interest in changing something, and then you don't know how to follow simple directions and respond churlishly. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:14:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Recycle Bin back.) The others are trying to mock me because I have no > >interest in their obsessions with the most fashionable software. "Most fashionable"? I've stuck with XPHome because it's AFAICT the most stable OS M$oft has ever perpetrated, and I'm being "fashionable"? And yes, Peter, people *are* trying to help you. You're putting up one hell of a fight though. You ask ambiguous questions, you make demonstrably false allegations about what various versions of Windows can and cannot do, you deliberately misunderstand instructions given, you fail to give details like WHAT OS YOU'RE USING... > I've given you several suggestions. The mocking comes because you > express interest in changing something, and then you don't know how to > follow simple directions and respond churlishly. I was right; he doesn't seem to "get along famously" with anyone. Dr. HotSalt >> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:14:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >instructions given, you fail to give details like WHAT OS YOU'RE >USING... Yet they believe that he isn't trolling. BW > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:14:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I've given you several suggestions. The mocking comes because you > express interest in changing something, I do (or did) no such thing. Shelly simply invented that. > and then you don't know how to > follow simple directions and respond churlishly. >> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:14:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >I do (or did) no such thing. Shelly simply invented that. You wrote: "Ok, Dudette, your solution for tiny buttons was to embiggen the taskbar. Now you claim that the buttons can be enlarged in that embiggened taskbar. How?" Is "How?" not expressing interest in changing something? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > >> >> >>> All that does is increase the height of the bar itself. The icons stay > >> >> >>> the same size and make a column instead of a row. Net result is only [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Is "How?" not expressing interest in changing something? No. I might do it once so that I know how, and immediately restore it to the unobtrusive format it now has. (As I did with repositioning the taskbar, after it transpired that they weren't all going on about dragging it sideways.) >It's not locked. How? http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/ SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog >> On Mar 17, 1:45 pm, "Shelly" <she...@cat-sidh.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >taskbar, and since it stretches across the entire bottom of the >screen, it cannot be moved to a side. Oh, dear. Put your cursor on the top of the task bar and move it slightly until it turns into a double-pointed arrow. Then drag the task bar upwards. You'll now see a double row of icons in the "embiggened" task bar. And, yes, you can move the task bar to the side. Click "Lock the task bar" (that unlocks it because the default is locked) and drag it to the side. Does it ever occur to you to ask "How?" instead of stating "There is no way"? Do you have a nine year-old nephew or neighbor that you could employ as a computer consultant for these things that are too complex for you? >> Or don't. You are the one with the wandering icon problem, not me, so > >Where did you get that idea? Where did I suggest I have a "wandering >icon problem"? I said that when my Recycle Bin icon reappeared after >an absence of a few weeks, it did so in the upper left corner, and >icons moved away from where they had been. You do not see that "moved away from where they had been" is cognate with "wander"? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > Does it ever occur to you to ask "How?" instead of stating "There is > no way"? That is I think the reason so many people end up in such heated arguments with PTD. Rather than saying, even "I'm pretty sure you can't do that" he comes in with categoric statements of fact that are not, in fact, facts. You'll also notice that he will post no replies to the many people who have explained how to expand the task bar that acknowledge his mistake or apologise for it. He'll most likely just ignore them, but may pick up on some other side issue and turn the argument down that path. For example, this post could easily get a response saying '"Many" doesn't mean only three". SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk > > Does it ever occur to you to ask "How?" instead of stating "There is > > no way"? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > or apologise for it. He'll most likely just ignore them, but may pick up > on some other side issue and turn the argument down that path. If you'll check the posting times, you'll see my replies to them were before I saw this message. No one has offered a "method" of making the icons any bigger. Which, not the embiggening of the taskbar, was the desired effect. > For example, this post could easily get a response saying '"Many" > doesn't mean only three". It is indeed odd to use "many" to mean 'three', but it didn't occur to me to mention that. >No one has offered a "method" of making the icons any bigger. Which, >not the embiggening of the taskbar, was the desired effect. You didn't ask for one. You just said it was impossible to embiggen them, which was just plain silly of you, Mr. Sillypants. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog >> Does it ever occur to you to ask "How?" instead of stating "There is >> no way"? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >For example, this post could easily get a response saying '"Many" >doesn't mean only three". So how does his pattern differ from trolling, if indeed you think it does? BW >> That is I think the reason so many people end up in such heated >> arguments with Peter T. Daniels. Rather than saying, even "I'm pretty [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> > So how does his pattern differ from trolling, if indeed you think it does? There's a difference in both pattern and intent between chronic verbal tap-dancing and trolling. The difference in pattern is that trolls generally exhibit the Five Unmistakable Marks. The difference in intent is that the intent of trolling is to disrupt and to toy with people; whereas the intent of the verbal tap-dancer is to hide xyr own incompetence and ignorance. You'll see verbal tap-dancing exhibited by politicians in interviews, when faced with subjects that they really don't know anything about, for example. And one sees it on Usenet, exhibited by people to whom the phrases "My error." and "Thank you. I didn't know that." are anathema, and the whole idea of seeking information (whether asking others for it or just investigating things for themselves) is foreign. The saddest part is that, as pointed out earlier, this is easily recognizable for most onlookers. People spot the uncomfortable politicians, the blustering middle-managers, or the incompetent academics when they engage in this, all trying to avoid "I don't know." and "I was in error about that.". Similarly, people spot the Usenet poster who will employ the most convoluted of "No, I was using another meaning you fool." gyrations in unremitting attempts to try to deny having said something dunderheaded that xe had said, or who explains having a problem and then when people provide help in solving it haughtily asks "Why would I want to do that?" to avoid having to admit that even a minimal application of effort and intelligence on xyr own part would have turned up the answer to the problem. Others may argue that there's no distinction between this and trolling. After all, trolls can pick up on the same tactics. But the difference in intent is there, nonetheless, I argue. For the verbal tap-dancer it is all about xyrself, and saving face. For the troll, it's all about mucking about with everyone else. But yes, given that we can only go by the postings, it's hard to determine intent. Sometimes ascribing intent is an ironic application of Hanlon's Razor: The person is incompetent and ignorant and trying to hide it, rather than malicious and trying to disrupt. For another take on this, see the comp.os.linux.advocacy FAQ and Primer, 3rd Edition. The *.advocacy newsgroups have seen all forms of silliness and stupidity under the Sun. (There's a you-said/no-I-didn't argument in comp.os.os2.advocacy that was going in the mid-1990s that I was amazed to find when I looked recently is still going a decade and a half later.) They are as an unintended consequence good resources for learning about this sort of stuff. Pay particular attention to items 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 47, and 48 in section 7.6. On Mar 18, 9:38 am, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote: > >> That is I think the reason so many people end up in such heated > >> arguments with Peter T. Daniels. Rather than saying, even "I'm pretty [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > meaning you fool." gyrations in unremitting attempts to try to deny > having said something dunderheaded that xe had said, For my own amusement I just may try to assemble a paragraph from PTDs misspellings. You know, the ones he calls others names for noticing. Just in this thread, of course. Dr. HotSalt >> So how does his pattern differ from trolling, if indeed you think it does? > >There's a difference in both pattern and intent between chronic verbal >tap-dancing and trolling. It used to be, back for the ORIGINAL definition of trolling, now alas long paved over, that there was supposed to be some subtle watermark involved indicating that the poster KNEW that what they were posting wasn't actually correct. Of course, this was the same definition where the object was specifically to get people to follow up to your post correcting your statements... >The difference in pattern is that trolls >generally exhibit the Five Unmistakable Marks. The difference in intent >is that the intent of trolling is to disrupt and to toy with people; >whereas the intent of the verbal tap-dancer is to hide xyr own >incompetence and ignorance. Yep. Tap-dancing - doesn't know but doesn't want to show it; trolling - does know, but wants it to Not Be Immediately Obvious so that those who pounce on following up will pounce before looking. Almost all of what is now called 'trolling' was what used to be named "flamebait". A pity, really. Dave Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. >>> Does it ever occur to you to ask "How?" instead of stating "There is >>> no way"? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >So how does his pattern differ from trolling, if indeed you think it >does? The parallel to the old sqw, "On the Internet no one knows you're a dog" is "On the Internet no one knows if you are a troll or just stupid". Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > The parallel to the old sqw, "On the Internet no one knows you're > a dog" is "On the Internet no one knows if you are a troll or > just stupid". That reminds me of a line from a recent Dilbert: "What's his comprehension level? Are we talking human, squirrel, or anvil?" http://dilbert.com/fast/2010-03-16/ SignatureI spend almost as much time figuring out what's wrong with my computer as I do actually using it. Networked software, especially, requires frequent updates and maintenance, all of which gets in the way of doing routine work. (Stoll 1995) > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:00:24 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > bar" (that unlocks it because the default is locked) and drag it to > the side. As I said, the taskbar extends the entire width of the screen. Dragging on the taskbar does absolutely nothing. I can reposition the icons by dragging each of them, but the bar itself is what it is. > Does it ever occur to you to ask "How?" instead of stating "There is > no way"? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You do not see that "moved away from where they had been" is cognate > with "wander"? "Wander" is not a punctual event. (And that's not the meaning of "cognate.") >> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:00:24 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Dragging on the taskbar does absolutely nothing. I can reposition the >icons by dragging each of them, but the bar itself is what it is. Then you probably have it locked. See note above about unlocking the taskbar. Maybe YOU can't reposition the taskbar, but millions of other people can. Your failure is not universal. BW >>> >> >Then they wouldn't fit. >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Maybe YOU can't reposition the taskbar, but millions of other people > can. Your failure is not universal. If I were an angel of mercy, this would be his time to die. --oTTo-- On Mar 18, 8:12 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:57:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Then you probably have it locked. See note above about unlocking the > taskbar. I must have stated at least four times that it is not locked. > Maybe YOU can't reposition the taskbar, but millions of other people > can. Your failure is not universal. No one said anything about repositioning. The claim was that it could be dragged to the side. How is that to be interpreted as anything other than like dragging any graphic element within any Office application? >No one said anything about repositioning. The claim was that it could >be dragged to the side. Yeah, dragging to the side is *totally* unlike repositioning. WTFBBQ?! Anyway, it can be dragged to the side, dragged to the top, dragged back to the bottom, or it can even be--you might want to sit down for this one--embiggened. Amazing! >How is that to be interpreted as anything >other than like dragging any graphic element within any Office >application? You're using Office? Well that's your problem, right there. Sheesh! SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog > >No one said anything about repositioning. The claim was that it could > >be dragged to the side. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You're usingOffice? Well that's your problem, right there. Sheesh! Oh, really? (I don't use Outlook, Excel, or Access.) Can you direct me to a word processor other than Word in which I can type any range of Unicode characters, using a native keyboard, which will order themselves and/or combine among themselves as needed, and which will allow me to assign an indefinitely large number of keyboard shortcuts to those characters that are not part of some script that has its own keyboard? There may well be programs that are better at each individual thing that Word does (certainly the bibliography tool introduced in Word2007 has its problems), but everything it does, it does at least adequately, and some of those things it does very well indeed. =A0Sheesh! >Can you direct me to a word processor other than Word in which I > can type any range of Unicode characters, using a native keyboard, > which will order themselves and/or combine among themselves as >needed, and which will allow me to assign an indefinitely large number >of keyboard shortcuts to those characters that are not part of some > script that has its own keyboard? Well, emacs for one, and it's FREE. Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request > =A0Sheesh! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Well, emacs for one, and it's FREE. Perhaps I should have added that compatibility with authors' files worldwide is essential. Curiously, the list of supported languages under 26.3 includes neither Arabic nor Hindi. Under 29, it looks as though absolutely everything you do is done by typing "programming" commands, and there's no such thing as WYSIWYG. Perhaps useful for typing computer programs. Unimaginably tedious for typing prose. > Perhaps useful for typing computer programs. Unimaginably tedious for > typing prose. proving that never mind how stable 56 Fe is, sometimes irony's in danger of criticality. butting Signaturehttp://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting Why did the chicken cross the Moebius Strip? >> Well, emacs for one, and it's FREE. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Curiously, the list of supported languages under 26.3 includes neither >Arabic nor Hindi. ...so wait. the communications issues everyone else is having with you is because you're translating from HINDI before posting? That actually makes rather a lot of sense. And explains the crosspost to sci.lang as well. Dave 'so of course he'll yell about it' DeLaney PS: >Perhaps useful for typing computer programs. Unimaginably tedious for >typing prose. If the prose is tedious, you must acquit. Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. > =A0Sheesh! >>Can you direct me to a word processor other than Word in which I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well, emacs for one, and it's FREE. Do I need to change my flavor of Emacs? I've been waiting for that statement to be true of XEmacs for over a decade now, but the XEmacs FAQ still says Real Unicode support will be introduced in XEmacs 22.0. http://www.xemacs.org/Documentation/21.5/html/xemacs-faq_2.html The current version is 21.4. Version 21.4.0 came out in 2001. I guess maybe it's time to take another look at GNU Emacs, which does indeed claim to do it. Do you know of a guide to the differences for those moving from XEmacs? (I'm sure that there's enough different under the covers that a lot of my elisp code will break.) SignatureEvan 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/ >=A0Sheesh! >>Can you direct me to a word processor other than Word in which I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Well, emacs for one, and it's FREE. Will OpenOffice do it? It's free. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:44:07 -0500, Mark Edwards > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Will OpenOffice do it? It's free. Came with my tiny Asus (Linux OS, unfortunately). The things it can't do far outweigh the novel things it can do. For instance, I needed small caps -- turns out there's no keyboard shortcut for it, and no way to add one. [...] > Came with my tiny Asus (Linux OS, unfortunately). The things it can't > do far outweigh the novel things it can do. For instance, I needed > small caps -- turns out there's no keyboard shortcut for it, and no > way to add one. Here's how: <http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=3202> I haven't tried it because I don't need it, but if you get it to work, let me know. SignatureLes (BrE) "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in news:b251b259- 7e5f-4b9a-af22-862ff305591a@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com: > Came with my tiny Asus IWPTA "tiny anus," which would explain a few things about Mr. Daniels. That is all. As you were, comrades. SignatureShelly http://cat-sidh.net/blog > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote... > >> Came with my tiny Asus > > IWPTA "tiny anus," which would explain a few things > about Mr. Daniels. Sorry, Petey Daniels does NOT have a *tiny* anus. Since these are family-type newsgroups, I can't go into details. Just one hint: Petey is "un grand pouf célèbre." Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ > > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > family-type newsgroups, I can't go into details. Just one hint: > Petey is "un grand pouf célèbre." Du, Vorbestrafter, du hast hier nichts zu suchen. >>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote... >>>> Came with my tiny Asus [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Du, Vorbestrafter, du hast hier nichts zu suchen. Somebody is starting to look like she-who-must-not-be-named. (See, Rey: even Australians can do hyphens.) SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net>: >On Mar 18, 8:12 am, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >> Maybe YOU can't reposition the taskbar, but millions of other people >> can. Your failure is not universal. > >No one said anything about repositioning. The claim was that it could >be dragged to the side. http://tinyurl.com/yebtw8c SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >No one said anything about repositioning. The claim was that it could >be dragged to the side. This is classic, classic, PTD. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > No one said anything about repositioning. The claim was that it could > be dragged to the side. How is that to be interpreted as anything > other than like dragging any graphic element within any Office > application? The people who said "dragged to the side" mean the taskbar can be repositioned to go up/down the left of right sides of the screen (or across the top). The taskbar can not be dragged to the side in the way, I believe, you are imagining. SignatureRay UK >> No one said anything about repositioning. The claim was that it could >> be dragged to the side. How is that to be interpreted as anything [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the top). The taskbar can not be dragged to the side in the way, I believe, >you are imagining. It might depend on which version of Windows you're talking about. I can indeed drag the taskbar to the side in Windows XP, as long as the taskbar isn't locked. In Vista, that doesn't seem to work. BW >> In >> news:7acee2c7-730e-4fa8-9eae-c7b90f970d30@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > BW It's the definition of "drag the taskbar to the side" that is the problem. What happens to the taskbar when you drag it. Does it relocate down the LH side (for example) or does it stay across the bottom with part of it moving off the screen? (another interpretation of "drag to the side") SignatureRay UK >>> In >>> news:7acee2c7-730e-4fa8-9eae-c7b90f970d30@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >It's the definition of "drag the taskbar to the side" that is the problem. For you, maybe. PTD seemed to be saying that it couldn't be dragged, which it can in Windows XP. >What happens to the taskbar when you drag it. Does it relocate down the LH >side (for example) Yes. BW > Innews:eqk4q5tv2h9ug357eop8g8djeoclqfvobi@4ax.com, > barb...@bookpro.com <barb...@bookpro.com> typed: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > side (for example) or does it stay across the bottom with part of it moving > off the screen? (another interpretation of "drag to the side") Nothing happens at all. It just stays put. If it can be repositioned along a side or the top of the screen, it doesn't seem to be by dragging. Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net>: >> It's the definition of "drag the taskbar to the side" that is the problem. >> What happens to the taskbar when you drag it. Does it relocate down the LH [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >along a side or the top of the screen, it doesn't seem to be by >dragging. Are you dragging horizontally? That won't work. Try diagonally. This page contains detailed instructions... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/253679 ... including an invitation to contact support if it doesn't work. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net>: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > ... including an invitation to contact support if it doesn't work. In what universe would the invitation to "drag to the side" be interpreted as 'drag diagonally'? Dragging diagonally does indeed produce a highly useless taskbar along the side. It's about twice the width it was when at the bottom, but the labels of open programs or documents show only the first few letters. And putting it back where it belongs leaves the IE window moved away from the edge of the screen by the width the sidebar formerly occupied. >> Are you dragging horizontally? That won't work. Try diagonally. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > moved away from the edge of the screen by the width the sidebar > formerly occupied. IF THIS IS THE FUTURE WHERE'S MY BLOODY RAY GUN? butting Signaturehttp://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting See Also: "Deserts: How to die in them", "The Stick: Second most useful thing ever" and "Poisonous and Venomous arachnids, insects, animals, trees, shrubs, fish and sheep of Australia, volumes 1-42" -- h2g2 Bryce Utting filted: >IF THIS IS THE FUTURE WHERE'S MY BLOODY RAY GUN? You must have missed it...he was president through most of the 1980s....r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle >>IF THIS IS THE FUTURE WHERE'S MY BLOODY RAY GUN? > > You must have missed it...he was president through most of the 1980s....r He wasn't bloody for very long though, not unless you count "ketchup is a vegetable". --oTTo-- >>>IF THIS IS THE FUTURE WHERE'S MY BLOODY RAY GUN? >> >> You must have missed it...he was president through most of the 1980s....r > >He wasn't bloody for very long though, not unless >you count "ketchup is a vegetable". You forget he was the victim of an almost successful assassination attempt. He was bloody for a few days. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>>IF THIS IS THE FUTURE WHERE'S MY BLOODY RAY GUN? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You forget he was the victim of an almost successful > assassination attempt. He was bloody for a few days. That's exactly what I was referring to, out of his *8 years* in office. --oTTo-- >That's exactly what I was referring to, out of his *8 years* >in office. I thought Kennedy served a couple years. How could Reagan have had a full *8* years after taking over? Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request >>That's exactly what I was referring to, out of his *8 years* >>in office. > > I thought Kennedy served a couple years. How could Reagan have had a > full > *8* years after taking over? Nah. With all that trickling, it just *seemed* like 8 years. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog >> That's exactly what I was referring to, out of his *8 years* >> in office. > > I thought Kennedy served a couple years. How could Reagan have had a full > *8* years after taking over? Well, if I understand the rules correctly, taking over does not stop a person from running *twice* in his own name. Theoretically, if a president were to die in the first week of office, his vice president could serve 11 years and 51 weeks. However, the point is moot, as I'm sure you're aware. SignatureDavid > >> That's exactly what I was referring to, out of his *8 years* > >> in office. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > president were to die in the first week of office, his vice president > could serve 11 years and 51 weeks. From the 22nd Amendment: "[N]o person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once >>>> That's exactly what I was referring to, out of his *8 years* >>>> in office. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the > President more than once Ah, there we go. I didn't understand the rules correctly. No surprise there, nothing to see, move along. SignatureDavid >>>>> That's exactly what I was referring to, out of his *8 years* >>>>> in office. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Ah, there we go. I didn't understand the rules correctly. No > surprise there, nothing to see, move along. The ObAUE question is how this works with the 12th Amendment, which says, in part ... no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. This came up with the question of whether Reagan, who had been elected president twice and therefore could not be elected again, could run for vice president with the promise that his running mate, if elected, would resign, leaving him president again. The question was whether being barred from being *elected* president made somebody "ineligible" to *be* president. The original (and still valid) eligibility requirements are spelled out in Article 2, Section 1: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Well, if you can't believe what you 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |read in a comic book, what can you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |believe?! | Bullwinkle J. Moose kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ No cluons were harmed when Otto Bahn wrote: >>> That's exactly what I was referring to, out of his *8 years* >>> in office. Mark Edwards wrote: >> I thought Kennedy served a couple years. How could Reagan have >> had a full *8* years after taking over? >However, the point is moot, as I'm sure you're aware. What have synthesizers got to do with this? Are you thinking of Keyboard Cat? Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request > No cluons were harmed when Otto Bahn wrote: >>>> That's exactly what I was referring to, out of his *8 years* [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What have synthesizers got to do with this? No, no, no. He said *mute*, not Moog. Sheesh. >Are you thinking of Keyboard Cat? Poor, mute Keyboard Cat. SignatureShelly http://www.cat-sidh.net/blog >Poor, mute Keyboard Cat. Keyboard Cat has no mouth. Here, hold my Yanni lick. ¬R \\ "More people are killed in cars every day than are \\ killed by gay marriages. Why not outlaw cars?" http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/cosmic.html \\ --Joe Guy >>> That's exactly what I was referring to, out of his *8 years* >>> in office. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >president were to die in the first week of office, his vice president >could serve 11 years and 51 weeks. Wrong. See Amendment XXII Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Mark Edwards: >> That's exactly what I was referring to, out of his *8 years* >> in office. > > I thought Kennedy served a couple years. How could Reagan have had a > full *8* years after taking over? Some technicality involving the four presidents between them? SignatureTrond Engen > Mark Edwards: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Some technicality involving the four presidents between them? Beware of cross-postings to alt.religion.kibology. They spend all day talking nonsense. SignatureDavid the Omrud filted: >> Mark Edwards: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Beware of cross-postings to alt.religion.kibology. They spend all day >talking nonsense. But then, when the day is done, and the moon rises over the battlements in the east.... ...r Signature"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle > the Omrud filted: >>Beware of cross-postings to alt.religion.kibology. They spend all day >>talking nonsense. Not *all* day, and anyway, you say that like it's a bad thing. (But at least you're not being disrespectful of the name, so I won't make a big deal out of it.) > But then, when the day is done, and the moon rises over the battlements in the > east.... It's five o'clock somewhere! SignatureNam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat illa: doidy doidy doidy. [plorkwort] > >That's exactly what I was referring to, out of his *8 years* > >in office. > > I thought Kennedy served a couple years. Several Kennedys have "served", but only one as President and that was long before Reagan's Presidency. > How could Reagan have had a full *8* years after taking over? By being re-elected. Dr. Hot"your troll-fu sucks"Salt Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net>: >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net>: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Dragging diagonally does indeed produce a highly useless taskbar along >the side. Well, at least we're getting somewhere. The answer to your question is, most people seem to have no trouble interpreting the instruction: in fact I know of no-one else who has had any difficulty. It seems entirely natural me, in this universe, to drag the approximate centre of the taskbar towards the place you want the approximate centre of the taskbar to be. AAMOI do you have any disability which makes it difficult for you to move the mouse as freely as most people? Serious question. I entered this sub-thread to follow up your assertion that it was impossible to move the taskbar. That is now done. And, stepping back a little, I hope you can now see how to accommodate a quick launch bar containing a number of large icons on your taskbar. Now, as to the screen-side taskbar being "useless"... that depends a lot on your monitor, your requirements and preferences, and (crucially) your ability to exploit the facilities you have at your disposal. >It's about twice the width it was when at the bottom, but >the labels of open programs or documents show only the first few >letters. You can make it wider, as you now know. As an example of a different way of working, take *my* taskbar. It's about 200 pixels wide, and for each running application it shows an icon and about 25 characters, which I find perfectly adequate. It leaves (on my 24" widescreen monitor) plenty of room for application windows, and the extra height of those windows slightly reduces the need for vertical scrolling. Here's a reduced-size snapshot: http://thedowerhouse.com/pics/taskbar.gif The taskbar at the side also allows room for similar (small icon + 30 characters) buttons on the Quick Launch bar, obviating the icons on the desktop. From the top you can see the Start button, the 11 buttons of the Quick Launch bar, six running application buttons, another launch bar[1] with a title and 14 buttons, and the tray ("notification") area with two icons. The rest of the screen is occupied by a maximised PowerDesk (Windows Explorer replacement) window which is always open, so I never see my (blank) desktop. I'm not suggesting that my taskbar/desktop would suit everyone else (or even anyone else), but it shows that it's possible to deviate from the standard setup with some success. >And putting it back where it belongs leaves the IE window >moved away from the edge of the screen by the width the sidebar >formerly occupied. So, move/resize the window to where you want it. Sheesh! [1] One general-purpose launch bar with "Other programs" sub-menu, and one specialised launch bar, courtesy of http://www.freelaunchbar.com SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net>: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > taskbar towards the place you want the approximate centre of the taskbar > to be. Why would I "want" the approximate center of the taskbar to be in the middle of the side of the screen? Where did anyone suggest that they were providing "instructions" for pivoting the taskbar 90 degrees? > AAMOI do you have any disability which makes it difficult for you to > move the mouse as freely as most people? Serious question. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > little, I hope you can now see how to accommodate a quick launch bar > containing a number of large icons on your taskbar. Still nothing on how to make the Quick Launch icons any bigger than they already are. > Now, as to the screen-side taskbar being "useless"... that depends a lot > on your monitor, your requirements and preferences, and (crucially) your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You can make it wider, as you now know. And take up even more of the screen's working area? (A 19" widescreen.) > As an example of a different way of working, take *my* taskbar. It's > about 200 pixels wide, and for each running application it shows an icon [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > bar[1] with a title and 14 buttons, and the tray ("notification") area > with two icons. Those icons don't look any bigger than my icons, and on your ginormous monitor they're even more insignificant. > The rest of the screen is occupied by a maximised PowerDesk (Windows > Explorer replacement) window which is always open, so I never see my > (blank) desktop. Covered with tiny lines of tiny print that could at best be distracting. > I'm not suggesting that my taskbar/desktop would suit everyone else (or > even anyone else), but it shows that it's possible to deviate from the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So, move/resize the window to where you want it. Sheesh! Obviously, I had to do that. > [1] One general-purpose launch bar with "Other programs" sub-menu, and > one specialised launch bar, courtesy ofhttp://www.freelaunchbar.com "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in news:c68dc7c6-3d75-428f-8a7c-d2c82e14f686@g11g2000yqe.googlegroup s.com: > Still nothing on how to make the Quick Launch icons any bigger > than they already are. You've been given those instructions multiple times. Unlock taskbar, right click on the Quick Launch toolbar (any clear spot), select View, then Large Icons. Are you thoroughly helpless and incompetent in everything you do? SignatureShelly http://cat-sidh.net/blog Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net>: >>The answer to your question is, >> most people seem to have no trouble interpreting the instruction: in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >middle of the side of the screen? Where did anyone suggest that they >were providing "instructions" for pivoting the taskbar 90 degrees? Then what exactly *did* you want to do? >> AAMOI do you have any disability which makes it difficult for you to >> move the mouse as freely as most people? Serious question. [No answer, I note] >> I entered this sub-thread to follow up your assertion that it was >> impossible to move the taskbar. That is now done. And, stepping back a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Still nothing on how to make the Quick Launch icons any bigger than >they already are. That's a separate matter and has been addressed several times elsewhere. If you still can't manage it, please say so. >> Now, as to the screen-side taskbar being "useless"... that depends a lot >> on your monitor, your requirements and preferences, and (crucially) your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >And take up even more of the screen's working area? (A 19" >widescreen.) Obviously. Your choice. >> As an example of a different way of working, take *my* taskbar. It's >> about 200 pixels wide, and for each running application it shows an icon [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Those icons don't look any bigger than my icons, and on your ginormous >monitor they're even more insignificant. Those icons probably aren't any bigger than your icons. That's not relevant to what I'm talking to you about, which is relocating and resizing the taskbar. But if it would help you, I can put some large icons there so that you can see the effect. Heck, it's easier to just do it whether you're interested or not. http://thedowerhouse.com/pics/taskbar2.gif You'll see that the large icons are four times the size (area) of the small ones. >> The rest of the screen is occupied by a maximised PowerDesk (Windows >> Explorer replacement) window which is always open, so I never see my >> (blank) desktop. > >Covered with tiny lines of tiny print that could at best be >distracting. The "print" (as you so quaintly call it) looks tiny only because I scaled down the image for your convenience. It's actually the substance of the display so I find it difficult to imagine what you think it might distract me from. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >>>The answer to your question is, >>> most people seem to have no trouble interpreting the instruction: in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Then what exactly *did* you want to do? Valerie Bertonelli on the Pope's desk. --oTTo-- > Then what exactly *did* you want to do? He wanted his desktop icons to stop wandering, so I suggested that he put them in his Quick Launch toolbar. Much hilarity ensued. SignatureShelly http://cat-sidh.net/blog >> Then what exactly *did* you want to do? > > He wanted his desktop icons to stop wandering, so I suggested that > he put them in his Quick Launch toolbar. Much hilarity ensued. He should have gotten milk icons instead of desktop ones. --oTTo-- "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com> wrote in news:ho0idt$e92$1 @gargoyle.oit.duke.edu: > He should have gotten milk icons instead of desktop ones. Clearly, but that would not have been as entertaining for the bozo gallery. SignatureShelly http://cat-sidh.net/blog >> Then what exactly *did* you want to do? > >He wanted his desktop icons to stop wandering, so I suggested that >he put them in his Quick Launch toolbar. Much hilarity ensued. Another option would be to use a free utility program that will pin the desktop icons so that Windows won't move them and/or will restore them if they get scrambled. If he gets over his inability to do a Web search, he can probably find one of these. BW On Mar 19, 3:21 pm, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: > >> Then what exactly *did* you want to do? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > them if they get scrambled. If he gets over his inability to do a Web > search, he can probably find one of these. It's _so_ generous of all of you to come up with solutions for a problem that exists only in the mind of Shelly. >On Mar 19, 3:21 pm, barb...@bookpro.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >It's _so_ generous of all of you to come up with solutions for a >problem that exists only in the mind of Shelly. Shelly doesn't care whether your icons move around on your desktop. You were the one who complained that they rearranged themselves. If you don't care if they rearrange themselves, then you don't need such a program. BW > > Then what exactly *did* you want to do? > > He wanted his desktop icons to stop wandering, so I suggested that > he put them in his Quick Launch toolbar. Much hilarity ensued. Shelly continues to repeat this mischaracterization even after it was corrected (which now makes it a lie). My desktop icons were never "wandering." Some of them changed their places when the Recycling Bin reappeared in the top left corner (thus displacing what had previously been there; but that one didn't simply move to a free spot -- it bumped another, and so on). "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in news:3e29652f- 5b3b-478b-be2c-56e7be515345@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com: > My desktop icons were never > "wandering." Some of them changed their places Sounds like they're wandering, to me. Best bring them in for milking. HTH HAND and God bless! SignatureShelly http://cat-sidh.net/blog > Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net>: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Then what exactly *did* you want to do? _I_ didn't want to do anything. It was Shelly, I believe, who suggested that something-or-other be put into the Quick Launch Area instead of as Shortcuts on the Desktop, and I commented that the QLA icons are too small to be easily legible. From that grew all this nonsense. > >> AAMOI do you have any disability which makes it difficult for you to > >> move the mouse as freely as most people? Serious question. > > [No answer, I note] Stupid question. > >> I entered this sub-thread to follow up your assertion that it was > >> impossible to move the taskbar. That is now done. And, stepping back a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's a separate matter and has been addressed several times elsewhere. > If you still can't manage it, please say so. How is "a number of large icons on your taskbar" different from "how to make the Quick Launch icons any bigger"? But again, it is only Shelly who wants me to do such a thing. As I said, I'm quite happy with the four seldom-used items on the QLA, where I can easily access them when I need them, but they are out of the way and occupying only space that would be idle anyway. > >> Now, as to the screen-side taskbar being "useless"... that depends a lot > >> on your monitor, your requirements and preferences, and (crucially) your [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > You'll see that the large icons are four times the size (area) of the > small ones. Na, und? If I can't do that, what's the use of showing me that you can? > >> The rest of the screen is occupied by a maximised PowerDesk (Windows > >> Explorer replacement) window which is always open, so I never see my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of the display so I find it difficult to imagine what you think it might > distract me from. From actual documents on top of it, whose windows were not maximized to the size of your screen? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in news:0fe14cff- 9407-4fdc-8601-f9820c3531a8@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com: > I commented that the QLA > icons are too small to be easily legible. Except that they don't have to be small. They can be embiggened. I mean, if *that* is the reason you don't use the Quick Launch toolbar, then it's easily remedied. If you don't use it Just Because, then perhaps you should have said that about 187 posts ago? SignatureShelly http://cat-sidh.net/blog Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net>: >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net>: >> >> AAMOI do you have any disability which makes it difficult for you to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Stupid question. Why? A disability might not be the actual reason for your apparent inability to do things that most people find trivial, but it's (still) obviously a possibility. >> >> I entered this sub-thread to follow up your assertion that it was >> >> impossible to move the taskbar. That is now done. And, stepping back a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >How is "a number of large icons on your taskbar" different from "how >to make the Quick Launch icons any bigger"? See above: "how to accommodate" large icons, not how to create them. >> But if it would help you, I can put some large icons there so that you >> can see the effect. Heck, it's easier to just do it whether you're [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Na, und? If I can't do that, what's the use of showing me that you >can? But you can do it, if you apply yourself. You might not believe that, but you didn't believe you could move the taskbar, and now you can. >> >> The rest of the screen is occupied by a maximised PowerDesk (Windows >> >> Explorer replacement) window which is always open, so I never see my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >From actual documents on top of it, whose windows were not maximized >to the size of your screen? I see. Yes, they could be distracting, but they wouldn't distract everyone, and they certainly don't distract me, so they're not distracting "at best". I did say that the layout wouldn't suit everyone, and I'm glad that you seem to be confirming that. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net>: >>Na, und? If I can't do that, what's the use of showing me that you can? > >But you can do it, if you apply yourself. You might not believe that, >but you didn't believe you could move the taskbar, and now you can. Perhaps if we all clap our hands and repeat "I _do_ believe in fairies, I do, I DO!"? >I did say that the layout wouldn't suit everyone, >and I'm glad that you seem to be confirming that. I'm beginning to get a definite idea of what the suits he's wearing look like, yes. Dave Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. >Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net>: >>>The answer to your question is, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Then what exactly *did* you want to do? As near as I can TELL from his various responses, he was actually looking for a way to SLIDE the taskbar to the left (or perhaps to the right), so that half of it would end up totally off-screen and it would end approximately in the middle bottom of the screen, leaving nothing across the rest of the bottom of the screen. He has said not one word about using dual screens, which is the only configuration I can imagine anyone wanting to try to do this in in the first place (so that, for example, you could have it centered on the gap between the screens with half on each screen). He will now reply yelling at us that no, that's not anything like he wanted to do either, are we stupid or what, isn't it obvious what he was trying to do? Without ever actually specifying what he DID want to do. (I'm fairly sure his Obvious Bag has several tears in it that have let most of his obvious escape, many years ago, so that what's obvious to normal people whooshes right by him.) Dave Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. > >Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net>: > >>>The answer to your question is, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > As near as I can TELL from his various responses, he was actually looking for Then your "TELLer" is badly malfunctioning. I was trying to understand why everyone was telling me to SLIDE the taskbar to the left, when _my_ taskbar occupies the entire width of the screen and thus is unslideable. They may all have found a way to shorten their taskbar so that it didn't occupy the entire width of the screen. > a way to SLIDE the taskbar to the left (or perhaps to the right), so that > half of it would end up totally off-screen and it would end approximately in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > first place (so that, for example, you could have it centered on the gap > between the screens with half on each screen). What would be the point of that? > He will now reply yelling at us that no, that's not anything like he wanted > to do either, are we stupid or what, isn't it obvious what he was trying to > do? Without ever actually specifying what he DID want to do. I didn't want to do anything. Shelly misinterpreted a report as to what happened when I regained my Recycle Bin. > (I'm fairly sure his Obvious Bag has several tears in it that have let most > of his obvious escape, many years ago, so that what's obvious to normal people > whooshes right by him.) What's obvious is that you kibblers exist for the purpose of wasting the time of people in other newsgroups. Peter T. Daniels (read in alt.religion.kibology): > Then your "TELLer" is badly malfunctioning. I was trying to understand > why everyone was telling me to SLIDE the taskbar to the left, when > _my_ taskbar occupies the entire width of the screen and thus is > unslideable. They may all have found a way to shorten their taskbar so > that it didn't occupy the entire width of the screen. Ob-SL/AUE: The interesting part is the misunderstanding. It was clear for the TELLer that "to the side" referred to the side of the screen. It was clear to you that "to the side" referred to the side of the taskbar. Is this a general ambiguity of this expression or is one of the participants in error? I think that "move the taskbar to the side" (silently implying ... of the screen) only makes sense to someone who already knows that taskbars can be moved to the top or sides of a screen. To someone who knows that, the intended interpretation is the more probable one. I assume that the TELLer believed that almost everyone knew that, while you didn't anyway (which in fact is not particular unusual IMO. Not everybody is into futzing). Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 28: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kotK9FNEYU> My favourite # 75: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx7bXk4N5no> > Peter T. Daniels (read in alt.religion.kibology): > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > didn't anyway (which in fact is not particular unusual IMO. Not everybody is > into futzing). I think "edge" rather than side would have been clear. And as for futzing [is that a terminus technicus, or just the ordinary Yinglish word?] ... I think I have made it clear over the years that I consider my computer a tool to be used for various purposes, rather than a toy to be tinkered with (just as if I had been a teenager in the *American Graffiti* era, I would have used a car for going places, not as a way to occupy otherwise empty hours, days, or months with souping up). Peter T. Daniels (read in sci.lang): > And as for futzing [is that a terminus technicus, or just the ordinary > Yinglish word?] ... I think I have made it clear over the years that I I know futzing as a term, not used too often, for playing with the computer's settings instead of doing any productive work with it. I don't know it's etymology or other uses. Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 63: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac> My favourite # 58: <http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=84F3ACC7D214B436> > Peter T. Daniels (read in sci.lang): >> >> And as for futzing [is that a terminus technicus, or just the ordinary >> Yinglish word?] ... I think I have made it clear over the years that I > I know futzing as a term, not used too often, for playing with the > computer's settings instead of doing any productive work with it. I don't > know it's etymology or other uses futz |fÉts| verb [ intrans. ] informal waste time; idle or busy oneself aimlessly : mother futzed around in the kitchen. ⢠( futz around with) deal with (something) in a trifling way; fiddle with : Mick was futzing around with his camera equipment. ORIGIN 1930s: perhaps an alteration of Yiddish arumfartzen âfart around.â Signature"Everyone has a photographic Memory, some just donât have film." ~Steven Wright >I think "edge" rather than side would have been clear. Drag it from the bottom to the edge? It was already on an edge. ¬R - we don't have branes made of clockworks, chocolate maidens http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/arkville.html --the Ur-beatle > I assume that the TELLer believed that almost everyone knew > that, while you didn't anyway (which in fact is not particular > unusual IMO. Not everybody is into futzing). Sure. Maybe I'm weird, but if someone told me to move the taskbar, and I couldn't figure out what the heck they meant, I'd ask. I would not insist that they were incorrect, because obvioulsy (to me, at least), they had some reason for believing that what they instructed me to do could, indeed, be done. PTD is reminding me more and more of Rumpelstiltskin every time he posts. SignatureShelly http://cat-sidh.net/blog >> >Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net>: >> >>>The answer to your question is, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Then your "TELLer" is badly malfunctioning. I was trying to understand >why everyone was telling me to SLIDE the taskbar to the left, Nobody said to SLIDE it anywhere, and nobody said to drag anything sideways. Those were your misinterpretations of what they actually did say. Whether you pretended to misinterpret them or did so sincerely is open to question. Considering that you are now introducing concepts that have not appeared in this thread previously and blaming them on someone else, I have my doubts about your sincerity. BW > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:00:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > and blaming them on someone else, I have my doubts about your > sincerity. Barb, you are a very bad woman. And you are reading selectively. The words "slide" and "sideways" were not introduced by me, but by someone(s) who understood the unclarity of the initial "instructions" and explained to you-all why I interpreted them as I did. And what is most offensive of all is your questioning of my integrity. >> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:00:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >of the initial "instructions" and explained to you-all why I >interpreted them as I did. Okay, at least you admit that none of the people you were responding to told you to slide the taskbar to the left, and none of them told you to drag it sideways. >And what is most offensive of all is your questioning of my integrity. Okay, so your misinterpretation of what people said was a sincere mistake. Gotcha. BW >> Nobody said to SLIDE it anywhere, and nobody said to drag anything >> sideways. Those were your misinterpretations of what they actually [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >of the initial "instructions" and explained to you-all why I >interpreted them as I did. Who used the word "slide"? I don't think anyone did. >And what is most offensive of all is your questioning of my integrity. Note: "sincerity" != "integrity" Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:19:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Who used the word "slide"? I don't think anyone did. I'm not going to hunt back through the thread to find the message in which someone figured out that they were talking about _repositioning_ using an expression -- "drag," I believe -- that I interpreted as 'sliding'. "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in news:fb3647d6-986f-4650-9b0b-07eceb346ac6@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups .com: > I'm not going to hunt back through the thread to find the > message in which someone figured out that they were talking > about _repositioning_ using an expression -- "drag," I believe > -- that I interpreted as 'sliding'. If you were using a real newsreader, instead of Google Groups, searching might not be such a thankless task. Just sayin'... SignatureShelly http://cat-sidh.net/blog > And what is most offensive of all is your questioning of my integrity. You've got some nerve accusing anyone else of that. SignatureClassical Greek lent itself to the promulgation of a rich culture, indeed, to Western civilization. Computer languages bring us doorbells that chime with thirty-two tunes, alt.sex.bestiality, and Tetris clones. (Stoll 1995) [PTD] > I have my doubts about your >virginity. IFYPFY. Msrk Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request >What's obvious is that you kibblers exist for the purpose of wasting >the time of people in other newsgroups. You say this as if it is a BAD thing. Yet you persist in crossposting. Mark-for-various-values-of-'people'-Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request >>What's obvious is that you kibblers exist for the purpose of wasting >>the time of people in other newsgroups. > >You say this as if it is a BAD thing. Yet you persist in crossposting. And it's clear that his newsreader does not do it automatically, because Google Groups isn't one. >Mark-for-various-values-of-'people'-Edwards Dave "and various integrations along the time axis" DeLaney Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. >Then your "TELLer" is badly malfunctioning. I was trying to understand >why everyone was telling me to SLIDE the taskbar to the left, when >_my_ taskbar occupies the entire width of the screen and thus is >unslideable. I doin't recall anyone telling you to *slide* the taskbar to the side. Can you supply a cite for that? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:00:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I doin't recall anyone telling you to *slide* the taskbar to the > side. Can you supply a cite for that? I'm not going to hunt back through the thread to find the message in which someone figured out that they were talking about _repositioning_ using an expression -- "drag," I believe -- that I interpreted as 'sliding'. Was there a reason for asking the question twice? >> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:00:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >using an expression -- "drag," I believe -- that I interpreted as >'sliding'. Ah, so you interpret "drag" as "slide". OK. >Was there a reason for asking the question twice? It got raised twice. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >As near as I can TELL from his various responses, he was actually looking for >a way to SLIDE the taskbar to the left (or perhaps to the right), so that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >to do either, are we stupid or what, isn't it obvious what he was trying to >do? Without ever actually specifying what he DID want to do. Or he will yell that no, he didn't want to to that, it was Shelly who wanted him to do that, and why would anyone want to do something so stupid. BW > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:37:34 -0400, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > wanted him to do that, and why would anyone want to do something so > stupid. Is that how you interpret what I posted two hours before you posted this? As Panu likes to say, You're a bad woman, Barb. A very bad woman. >As Panu likes to say, You're a bad woman, Barb. A very bad woman. She's just DRAWN bad. Oh wait. Never mind - she IS a bad, bad woman. I'd guess that she is very good at being a woman and merely evil. Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request >>As Panu likes to say, You're a bad woman, Barb. A very bad woman. > >She's just DRAWN bad. Oh wait. Never mind - she IS a bad, bad woman. I'd >guess that she is very good at being a woman and merely evil. No, I'm not very good at being a woman. But I'm pretty damn good at being a person, and I guess that'll have to do. BW > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 09:59:31 -0500, Mark Edwards > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, I'm not very good at being a woman. But I'm pretty damn good at > being a person, and I guess that'll have to do. Panu, however, does not say "You are a very bad person." He says You are a very bad man." > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 09:59:31 -0500, Mark Edwards > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > BW Silly person. You are a woman therefore you are PERFECT at it. Marie >No, I'm not very good at being a woman. But I'm pretty damn good at >being a person, and I guess that'll have to do. Well yes, that will do nicely. Can you do a tree? How are you at being an alien invader? Mark Edwards SignatureProof of Sanity Forged Upon Request >>>As Panu likes to say, You're a bad woman, Barb. A very bad woman. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >No, I'm not very good at being a woman. But I'm pretty damn good at >being a person, and I guess that'll have to do. She's a pretty good conversationalist, too. As well as having a deft hand at the odd booby-trap. Dave "where IS whatshisname, anyway?" DeLaney Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. >>> As Panu likes to say, You're a bad woman, Barb. A very bad woman. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > being a person, and I guess that'll have to do. > BW You seem to be unhappy with being a woman. How can one be a good person and not being a good woman or man? It sounds like cheep PC android rhetoric. pjk >>>> As Panu likes to say, You're a bad woman, Barb. A very bad woman. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >You seem to be unhappy with being a woman. I'm not unhappy with it. I can't sing well either, but I enjoy singing. You're better at jumping to conclusions than at reasoning, aren't you? >How can one be a good person and not being a good woman or man? >It sounds like cheep PC android rhetoric. If that's how it sounds to you, you're entitled to your superficial analysis, just as you are entitled to your faulty reasoning. BW >> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:37:34 -0400, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Is that how you interpret what I posted two hours before you posted >this? I hadn't read what you posted two hours before I posted that. I was responding to Dave's post. BW > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:06:17 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I hadn't read what you posted two hours before I posted that. I was > responding to Dave's post. Let it be a lesson to you, to read others' responses before posting your own. Petey T. Daniels wrote: [...] > As Panu likes to say, You're a bad woman, Barb. A very bad woman. Hilarious! Madman Petey emulating madman Panu. Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net>: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >Dragging diagonally does indeed produce a highly useless taskbar along >> >the side. [Deleted a lot of fooforaw where he complains that he doesn't like the task bar on theleft side since who gives a f.ck?] Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net>: >>> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net>: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Well, at least we're getting somewhere. Does PTD remind anyone else of a character from British pantomime? "Oh no you don't!" "Oh yes I do!" etc. etc. BW >In what universe would the invitation to "drag to the side" be >interpreted as 'drag diagonally'? Perhaps in one where something was being dragged *from the bottom* to the side, and where expressions had meaning in context rather than in isolation. ¬R / Darla: Leftovers aren't the mark of a man. \ www.bestweb.net/~notr Andrew Reid: Actually, they are, because that's how men's shirts button. >>In what universe would the invitation to "drag to the side" be >>interpreted as 'drag diagonally'? > >Perhaps in one where something was being dragged *from the bottom* to the >side, and where expressions had meaning in context rather than in >isolation. One wonders what he thought they meant. I can't tell whether it's his reading comprehension that is so poor or that he sees the entire world from a different angle than most people. BW >>>In what universe would the invitation to "drag to the side" be >>>interpreted as 'drag diagonally'? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >BW He evidently feels that "drag to the side" can only mean "drag sidewise". One imagines him - when instructed to move to the side of the room - to move across like a castle on a ches |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message