Hell
David Smyth
of steaming hot pools, Devil's with pitch forks, and incredibly
uncomfortable air temperatures. The truth is that the concept "Burn in
Hell" means to have constant excruciating pain (what does "exquisite
pain" mean) for eternity...such as an exposed nerve on a tooth, or on
all teeth, or a vice grip on your nuts. Would anyone want that.
Wouldn't a forever of nothing be better?
Skitt
"David Smyth" <dsmy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8bd366b3.02021...@posting.google.com...
You have stumbled into alt.usage.english. Yes, there are answers to some of
your questions -- for one, we do not use the greengrocers' apostrophes here,
so the preferred way would be to write "... devils with pitchforks ..."
(yes, "pitchfork" is one word, and especially since you are talking about
many of them, "devils" is not capitalized). Further, "exquisite", as your
dictionary may well tell you, among other things means "acute or intense".
Also, falling into the grips of vice may not be painful at all, but rather
enjoyable. Having a vise grip your privates is a whole nother thing.
Imagining a "forever of nothing" takes some doing, and I don't think I have
the capacity to fully experience it. Sorry.
Cheers!
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Eric Walker
And the significance of this for English usage is . . . ?
(Aside from the several errors in it.)
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Owlcroft House
Raymond S. Wise
There are, in fact, some Christian religions who hold that the damned
are annihilated.
Isaac Asimov, for one, appears to have preferred the idea of
annihilation to the alternatives. He even wrote a short story in which
a person was abducted by God, with the goal of having the person think
of a way that God could annihilate himself!
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Alec Owen
I've heard it said that one can get used to anything.
A Owen
Alec Owen
"Raymond S. Wise" <mpl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:47dd044c.02021...@posting.google.com...
> dsmy...@hotmail.com (David Smyth) wrote in message
news:<8bd366b3.02021...@posting.google.com>...
> > I think that the original concept of Hell has been softened to a place
> > of steaming hot pools, Devil's with pitch forks, and incredibly
> > uncomfortable air temperatures. The truth is that the concept "Burn in
> > Hell" means to have constant excruciating pain (what does "exquisite
> > pain" mean) for eternity...such as an exposed nerve on a tooth, or on
> > all teeth, or a vice grip on your nuts. Would anyone want that.
> > Wouldn't a forever of nothing be better?
>
>
> There are, in fact, some Christian religions who hold that the damned
> are annihilated.
Annihilatiuon being preferrable to eternal fire, how do they keep
their communicants in line without this threat?
A Owen
CyberCypher
news:3c6f4055$2...@audacity.velocet.net:
You are being much too logical. The faithful would prefer to believe
that even for the eternally damned, their god might in one of his
generous moments grace them with redemption, a harp, a white robe, and
a pair of golden wings. What else and what more could be expected of
those who are so spiritually lacking that they need to import inner
strength from the outside?
--
Franke: Frankly feeling like a ghost.
J. J. Lodder
Your concepts are quite outdated.
As we know nowadays:
"L'enfer, c'est les autres." (J. P. Sartre)
Based on careful research, no doubt,
Jan
Mark Wallace
"Alec Owen" <ao...@phaedrav.com> wrote in message
news:3c6f...@audacity.velocet.net...
Having spent two months with a broken tooth and no possible access
to a dentist, I can attest to that. It's all in the mind.
Not that I'm volunteering to do it again, mind.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
You want nanomachines?
I'll give you bloody nanomachines!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/nmaj.htm
____________________________
Eric Walker
>Your concepts are quite outdated.
>As we know nowadays:
>
>"L'enfer, c'est les autres." (J. P. Sartre)
>
>Based on careful research, no doubt,
I believe it was Tom Holt who said "Hell is not other people.
Hell is having your lungs pulled out through your nostrils with
red-hot tongs."
jan sand
I suppose it might be justifiable to discuss this under the assumption
that "Hell" might be definable, althought it does drench one with
theocratic philosophy.
I am far from expert on the matter, but I doubt one can punish someone
by total elimination of consciousness. This is closer to anaesthesia
than punishment.
Your proposal that there has been more current data on the nature of
Hell is outside my latest observations. Who has completed this
research and where can it be examined?
Jan Sand
david56
>
> "David Smyth" <dsmy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8bd366b3.02021...@posting.google.com...
> > I think that the original concept of Hell has been softened to a place
> > of steaming hot pools, Devil's with pitch forks, and incredibly
> > uncomfortable air temperatures. The truth is that the concept "Burn in
> > Hell" means to have constant excruciating pain (what does "exquisite
> > pain" mean) for eternity...such as an exposed nerve on a tooth, or on
> > all teeth, or a vice grip on your nuts. Would anyone want that.
> > Wouldn't a forever of nothing be better?
>
> You have stumbled into alt.usage.english. Yes, there are answers to some of
> your questions -- for one, we do not use the greengrocers' apostrophes here,
> so the preferred way would be to write "... devils with pitchforks ..."
> (yes, "pitchfork" is one word, and especially since you are talking about
> many of them, "devils" is not capitalized). Further, "exquisite", as your
> dictionary may well tell you, among other things means "acute or intense".
> Also, falling into the grips of vice may not be painful at all, but rather
> enjoyable. Having a vise grip your privates is a whole nother thing.
> Imagining a "forever of nothing" takes some doing, and I don't think I have
> the capacity to fully experience it. Sorry.
Although I appreciate your general sentiment, Skitt, you have corrected
a pondian difference - the thing I have in my garage for holding wood
still while I cut it is a "vice"; allowing one's nuts to be captured by
it would be uncomfortable, at the least. Make what puns you can of
this.
I suppose it's not a word I use when visiting your continent, but if I
ever knew of this spelling difference, I had forgotten it. Your version
just looks wrong.
BTW the idea of a "pitch fork" is intriguing. I suppose it would work
reasonably well at low temperatures, but would become infeasibly sticky
in warmer weather.
--
David
The address is valid today, but I will change it at to keep ahead of the
spammers.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Donna Richoux
> Skitt wrote:
> >
> > You have stumbled into alt.usage.english. Yes, there are answers to some of
> > your questions -- for one, we do not use the greengrocers' apostrophes here,
> > so the preferred way would be to write "... devils with pitchforks ..."
> > (yes, "pitchfork" is one word, and especially since you are talking about
> > many of them, "devils" is not capitalized). Further, "exquisite", as your
> > dictionary may well tell you, among other things means "acute or intense".
> > Also, falling into the grips of vice may not be painful at all, but rather
> > enjoyable. Having a vise grip your privates is a whole nother thing.
> > Imagining a "forever of nothing" takes some doing, and I don't think I have
> > the capacity to fully experience it. Sorry.
>
> Although I appreciate your general sentiment, Skitt, you have corrected
> a pondian difference - the thing I have in my garage for holding wood
> still while I cut it is a "vice"; allowing one's nuts to be captured by
> it would be uncomfortable, at the least. Make what puns you can of
> this.
>
> I suppose it's not a word I use when visiting your continent, but if I
> ever knew of this spelling difference, I had forgotten it. Your version
> just looks wrong.
I don't think I was ever aware of this spelling difference, either. It's
in the dictionaries, though. Merriam-Webster says:
Main Entry: 2 vice
chiefly British variant of VISE
And from Cambridge International Dictionary of English:
vice especially British and Australian, American usually vise (TOOL)
noun [C]
a tool with two parts which can be moved together by tightening a
screw so that an object can be held firmly between them while it is
being worked on
Webster's 1828 was aware of both spellings and voted for "vise."
--
There's always somepn -- Donna Richoux
Simon R. Hughes
"You're either with us, or you may go to hell!" -- George Bush
(paraphrased)
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
<!-- Lots to write; nothing to say. -->
Bill Schnakenberg
Here in the US, those 'two parts' are called "jaws". Different elsewhere?
> Webster's 1828 was aware of both spellings and voted for "vise."
>
> --
> There's always somepn -- Donna Richoux
--
Bill
david56
> > > I suppose it's not a word I use when visiting your continent, but if I
> > > ever knew of this spelling difference, I had forgotten it. Your version
> > > just looks wrong.
> >
> > I don't think I was ever aware of this spelling difference, either. It's
> > in the dictionaries, though. Merriam-Webster says:
> >
> > Main Entry: 2 vice
> > chiefly British variant of VISE
> >
> > And from Cambridge International Dictionary of English:
> >
> > vice especially British and Australian, American usually vise (TOOL)
> > noun [C]
> > a tool with two parts which can be moved together by tightening a
> > screw so that an object can be held firmly between them while it is
> > being worked on
Hence exhibiting a "vice-like grip".
>
> Here in the US, those 'two parts' are called "jaws". Different elsewhere?
"Jaws" is good.
Steve Hayes
The English word "hell" is derived from a Norse deity of that name, who was
guardian of the underworld, and equivalent of the Greek Hades (Latin=Pluto)
who doesn't come into it much.
As a result when the Christian scriptures etc were translated into Germanic
languages the word Hades was translated as Hell, because it was thought to be
culturally equivalent, and something the natives would find easier to grasp
than a transliterated Greek word.
Back in those days both the Greek Hades and the Norse/Germanic Hell were
thought of primarily as jailers rather than torturers, though I suppose in
some circumstances the distinction can become blurred, as with sadistic prison
warders.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Skitt
"david56" <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3C6FADCE...@ntlworld.com...
You are right, of course, but I assumed that the original poster hails from
the USA. I may have been wrong, but there's no way to tell.
> I suppose it's not a word I use when visiting your continent,
> but if I ever knew of this spelling difference, I had forgotten
> it. Your version just looks wrong.
To avoid unforeseen pain, in AmE we like to make a distinction between the
two concepts.
Richard J.
"Skitt" <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a4p38e$1rsm0$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de...
> > Although I appreciate your general sentiment, Skitt, you have
> > corrected a pondian difference - the thing I have in my garage
> > for holding wood still while I cut it is a "vice"; allowing
> > one's nuts to be captured by it would be uncomfortable, at the
> > least. Make what puns you can of this.
>
> You are right, of course, but I assumed that the original poster hails
from
> the USA. I may have been wrong, but there's no way to tell.
The properties of the orginal poster's message indicate that he was in a
time-zone 8 hours behind UTC (GMT), which probably means somewhere in
western USA.
--
Richard J.
(To e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)
Skitt
"Richard J." <rjn...@blueukder.co.yon> wrote in message
news:j0Wb8.2509$PR7.19...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Well, that's where Hotmail is, but that says nothing about the poster, I
think.
J. J. Lodder
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:45:01 +0100, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> >Your concepts are quite outdated.
> >As we know nowadays:
> >
> >"L'enfer, c'est les autres." (J. P. Sartre)
> >
> >Based on careful research, no doubt,
>
> I believe it was Tom Holt who said "Hell is not other people.
> Hell is having your lungs pulled out through your nostrils with
> red-hot tongs."
A smoker?
Jan
J. J. Lodder
Jean Paul Sartre, Huis clos.
Translated in English as: No Exit
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> Thus Spake J. J. Lodder:
> > David Smyth <dsmy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think that the original concept of Hell has been softened to a place
> > > of steaming hot pools, Devil's with pitch forks, and incredibly
> > > uncomfortable air temperatures. The truth is that the concept "Burn in
> > > Hell" means to have constant excruciating pain (what does "exquisite
> > > pain" mean) for eternity...such as an exposed nerve on a tooth, or on
> > > all teeth, or a vice grip on your nuts. Would anyone want that.
> > > Wouldn't a forever of nothing be better?
> >
> > Your concepts are quite outdated.
> > As we know nowadays:
> >
> > "L'enfer, c'est les autres." (J. P. Sartre)
> >
> > Based on careful research, no doubt,
>
> "You're either with us, or you may go to hell!" -- George Bush
> (paraphrased)
No need to remind us all the time what's wrong with the guy,
Jan
jan sand
As much as I admire any theoretical investigation into the nature of
the afterlife, I had hoped for more concrete data. Bernard Shaw and
Mark Twain also speculated on the nature of what might come afterward,
and commented acerbically on common concepts but reality has always
outreached the imagination of humanity to the continuous surprise of
what society had assumed. This, of course, assumes the reality of
Hell, an assumption that is most likely to be unjustified inspite of
its moral utility.
Jan Sand
Pat Durkin
"jan sand" <jan...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c703965...@news.mindspring.com...
Jan and Jan:
Hell has a website www.hell.com , but it appears to be a subscription site:
all access is restricted to invited guests
to get on the guest list
apply
another page: trying to fix or change something, only guarantees and
perpetuates its existence. (no attribution)
I am so disappointed. This may be the site I first visited about 6 years
ago. It was based in Scandinavia someplace. The home page was scarlet
embossed with a gigantic devil-with-pitchfork (or possibly playing with his
tail). Admission was "open doors" at that time. I wonder why it changed.
Too many wanting to get in?
I wonder when it changed. November, 2000?
Dr Robin Bignall
<bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Bill Schnakenberg wrote:
>> > > I suppose it's not a word I use when visiting your continent, but if I
>> > > ever knew of this spelling difference, I had forgotten it. Your version
>> > > just looks wrong.
>> >
>> > I don't think I was ever aware of this spelling difference, either. It's
>> > in the dictionaries, though. Merriam-Webster says:
>> >
>> > Main Entry: 2 vice
>> > chiefly British variant of VISE
>> >
>> > And from Cambridge International Dictionary of English:
>> >
>> > vice especially British and Australian, American usually vise (TOOL)
>> > noun [C]
>> > a tool with two parts which can be moved together by tightening a
>> > screw so that an object can be held firmly between them while it is
>> > being worked on
>
>Hence exhibiting a "vice-like grip".
>
>>
>> Here in the US, those 'two parts' are called "jaws". Different elsewhere?
>
>"Jaws" is good.
They say that the more naughty members of the vice squad put the
squeeze on people. That's what can you expect from such an ambiguous
word.
If I lived in America I could construct my third story about my third
story and nobody would have a clue.
I vote that we adopt vise when they adopt storey.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
david56
But even then they wouldn't be able to locate your third storey as they
think it's only two above ground.
UK counts the floor immediately above ground level as the "First
Floor". In my house, the living room and study are on the ground floor,
and the bedrooms and bathrooms (where the baths are, BTW), are on the
first floor. Americans keep their bedrooms on the second floor.
Skitt
>
> In my house, the living room and study are on the ground floor,
> and the bedrooms and bathrooms (where the baths are, BTW), are on the
> first floor. Americans keep their bedrooms on the second floor.
I didn't know you had Americans living in your house.
Richard J.
>
> "Richard J." <rjn...@blueukder.co.yon> wrote in message
> news:j0Wb8.2509$PR7.19...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> >
> > "Skitt" <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:a4p38e$1rsm0$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de...
> > > from the USA. I may have been wrong, but there's no way to tell.
> > The properties of the orginal poster's message indicate that he was in
> > a time-zone 8 hours behind UTC (GMT), which probably means
> > somewhere in western USA.
>
> Well, that's where Hotmail is, but that says nothing about the poster, I
> think.
That is correct; I was wrong. You can discover the originating timezone for
Hotmail e-mails but not news posts.
Mark Wallace
>
> "david56" <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:3C7043AD...@ntlworld.com...
> >
> > In my house, the living room and study are on the ground floor,
> > and the bedrooms and bathrooms (where the baths are, BTW), are
on the
> > first floor. Americans keep their bedrooms on the second floor.
>
> I didn't know you had Americans living in your house.
From what I can tell by reading the thread, so far, the house is
owned by Americans (Patagonian, presumably), and David and his
family live between the floorboards; 'borrowing' things, as
required.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
Little girl lost?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/mother.htm
____________________________
Mark Wallace
"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:1f7roxh.crp...@de-ster.demon.nl...
What's wrong with the guy is that he was elected. A bigoted idiot
with no power is not a problem.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Doctor Charles.
You can trust him.
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/doc01.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Spooky Guy Next Door
Schnakenberg (will...@frontiernet.net) wrote:
> Donna Richoux wrote:
>
> > I don't think I was ever aware of this spelling difference, either. It's
> > in the dictionaries, though. Merriam-Webster says:
> >
> > Main Entry: 2 vice
> > chiefly British variant of VISE
> >
> > And from Cambridge International Dictionary of English:
> >
> > vice especially British and Australian, American usually vise (TOOL)
> > noun [C]
> > a tool with two parts which can be moved together by tightening a
> > screw so that an object can be held firmly between them while it is
> > being worked on
>
> Here in the US, those 'two parts' are called "jaws". Different elsewhere?
Not here, AFAICT.
--
The ideas expressed in the above post are my own, with the possible
exception of the one involving a scarecrow and a stick of butter.
blog - http://www.cyberfuddle.com/infinitebabble/
cyberfuddle - http://www.cyberfuddle.com/
netiquette (read!) - http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post
Spooky Guy Next Door
Richoux (tr...@euronet.nl) wrote:
> I don't think I was ever aware of this spelling difference, either. It's
> in the dictionaries, though. Merriam-Webster says:
>
> Main Entry: 2 vice
> chiefly British variant of VISE
>
> And from Cambridge International Dictionary of English:
>
> vice especially British and Australian, American usually vise (TOOL)
> noun [C]
> a tool with two parts which can be moved together by tightening a
> screw so that an object can be held firmly between them while it is
> being worked on
>
> Webster's 1828 was aware of both spellings and voted for "vise."
I'd always used "vise", and I speak (chiefly) BrE.
I'm with you about the spelling difference - "vice" means something
completley different, always has AFAIKnew.
Charles Riggs
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>"You're either with us, or you may go to hell!" -- George Bush
>(paraphrased)
But that version spoils the meaning of "Either you're with me or
against me", which doesn't mention the consequences for people who
aren't with me. Jesus, who originated the expression or one nearly
like it, wouldn't have paraphrased it the way you did. He said, by the
way:
He that is not with me is against me... , Luke 11.23
A fine saying it is, and I take it to heart. It has universal
applicability.
Charles Riggs
David Smyth
I actually did no research as to the original concept of Hell. I just
assumed that whoever described Hell as burning probably wanted to
convey the idea of constant excruciating pain for eternity, such as
when a flame is on the skin and that this concept got watered down and
misdescribed as the condition of being in an extremely hot place (such
as Phoenix). If someone wants to describe the worst (theoretical)
condition for a being they would describe excruciating pain for all
eternity (think of this concept the next time you hit your thumb with
a hammer). As for my reference to a forever of nothingness, i.e. a
total elimination of consciousness, I was simply making the point that
since nothingness is something that may very likely await all of us,
things could be worse; there could be a real Hell and you could go to
it.
Eric Walker
[...]
>I actually did no research as to the original concept of Hell. I just
>assumed that whoever described Hell as burning probably wanted to
>convey the idea of constant excruciating pain for eternity, such as
>when a flame is on the skin and that this concept got watered down and
>misdescribed as the condition of being in an extremely hot place (such
>as Phoenix).
There are various other less naive interpretations. I think it
was St. Teresa of Avila who suggested that the "flames of Hell"
were the light of God's radiance as perceived by the souls who
had chosen to turn away from Him.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Owlcroft House
Alan Jones
"Spooky Guy Next Door" <mgall...@cyberfuddle.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16da72a85...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary, Donna
> Richoux (tr...@euronet.nl) wrote:
>
> > I don't think I was ever aware of this spelling difference, either. It's
> > in the dictionaries, though. Merriam-Webster says:
> >
> > Main Entry: 2 vice
> > chiefly British variant of VISE
> >
> > And from Cambridge International Dictionary of English:
> >
> > vice especially British and Australian, American usually vise (TOOL)
> > noun [C]
> > a tool with two parts which can be moved together by tightening a
> > screw so that an object can be held firmly between them while it is
> > being worked on
> >
> > Webster's 1828 was aware of both spellings and voted for "vise."
>
> I'd always used "vise", and I speak (chiefly) BrE.
>
> I'm with you about the spelling difference - "vice" means something
> completley different, always has AFAIKnew.
OED2 (followed by NSOED) shows "vice" as the spelling for this tool, with
"vise" as the AmE variant. "Vice" is BrE standard in e.g. tool catalogues
and DIY manuals, though many tools are imported from countries where "vise"
is used and we therefore often see that version.
There is only one pre-1901 OED citation for "vise" (in a 16th century bit of
dog-Latin), though as "vice" the word is ancient. I was surprised at how
many senses and sub-senses there were for vice, apart from "screwed clamp"
and "depravity"; some seem to be abbreviated forms of "device" or "advice".
In the US, does "vise" rhyme with "device" or "devise"?
Alan Jones
Simon R. Hughes
Mark Wallace
> Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Bill
> Schnakenberg (will...@frontiernet.net) wrote:
>
> > Donna Richoux wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think I was ever aware of this spelling difference,
either. It's
> > > in the dictionaries, though. Merriam-Webster says:
> > >
> > > Main Entry: 2 vice
> > > chiefly British variant of VISE
> > >
> > > And from Cambridge International Dictionary of English:
> > >
> > > vice especially British and Australian, American usually
vise (TOOL)
> > > noun [C]
> > > a tool with two parts which can be moved together by
tightening a
> > > screw so that an object can be held firmly between them
while it is
> > > being worked on
> >
> > Here in the US, those 'two parts' are called "jaws". Different
elsewhere?
>
> Not here, AFAICT.
You must have skipped woodwork and metalwork. 'Jaws' is what
they're normally called. I can't remember what those little
L-shaped pieces of soft metal, that the metalwork tutor used to
insist we put inside the jaws to protect them, were called, though.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
You want nanomachines?
I'll give you bloody nanomachines!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/nmaj.htm
____________________________
david56
>
> "david56" <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:3C7043AD...@ntlworld.com...
> >
> > In my house, the living room and study are on the ground floor,
> > and the bedrooms and bathrooms (where the baths are, BTW), are on the
> > first floor. Americans keep their bedrooms on the second floor.
>
> I didn't know you had Americans living in your house.
Hells bells, nor did I. Our cat died three years ago so they've
probably been breeding; I must send for the pest controller.
There's another different word - we use a "pest controller" but you go
all out and don't pussy foot around, sending for an "exterminator", a
word which frightens me severely.
david56
>
> Thus Spake J. J. Lodder:
> > Simon R. Hughes <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
> >
> > > Thus Spake J. J. Lodder:
> > > > David Smyth <dsmy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think that the original concept of Hell has been softened to a place
> > > > > of steaming hot pools, Devil's with pitch forks, and incredibly
> > > > > uncomfortable air temperatures. The truth is that the concept "Burn in
> > > > > Hell" means to have constant excruciating pain (what does "exquisite
> > > > > pain" mean) for eternity...such as an exposed nerve on a tooth, or on
> > > > > all teeth, or a vice grip on your nuts. Would anyone want that.
> > > > > Wouldn't a forever of nothing be better?
> > > >
> > > > Your concepts are quite outdated.
> > > > As we know nowadays:
> > > >
> > > > "L'enfer, c'est les autres." (J. P. Sartre)
> > > >
> > > > Based on careful research, no doubt,
> > >
> > > "You're either with us, or you may go to hell!" -- George Bush
> > > (paraphrased)
> >
> > No need to remind us all the time what's wrong with the guy,
>
> <http://www.georgewgirls.com/>
>
> (It's not porn.)
Perhaps not, but it is obscene.
Bob Cunningham
said:
[ . . . ]
>OED2 (followed by NSOED)
I question the justice of your implication that _The New Shorter Oxford_
(_NSOED_) follows _The Oxford English Dictionary_ (_OED_).
The following comments appear in the Preface to _NSOED_:
The book was a replacement for the third edition of the Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary, but does not represent a direct
revision of its text. The New SOED editors returned to the Oxford
English Dictionary itself (in later stages the second edition of
1989, originally the first edition of 1884-1928 and its
four-volume Supplement of 1972-86), and reabridged, conflated,
revised, restructured, added, and updated. Every entry was written
afresh, taking into account the linguistic evidence of the
Dictionary Department's extensive quotation files and computer
databases. Many new words and senses were added, and all were
reviewed in the light of social and political changes.
I view the _OED_ as an excellent source of historical data, but not as a
good choice for a modern reference. It has a substantial amount of
material that has not been revised since it was first written a hundred
years or so ago, and one reason it has not been revised is that the Oxford
University Press editors lacked the resources to do a full revision when
the second edition was made.
I have no reason to disbelieve the editors of _NSOED_ when they say that
every article in it has been written afresh. I consider it the best
modern British dictionary available, bar none -- including the _OED_.
Rather than thinking of _NSOED_ as following _OED_, I prefer to assume
that in the ongoing updating of the online _OED_, the editors will find
frequent occasion to take a peek at _NSOED_.
david56
"Jaw protectors"?
I suspect that Spooky was replying literally - "Not [different] here,
AFAICT" - and therefore did not skip metalwork.
Spooky Guy Next Door
Wallace (mwallac...@noknok.nl) wrote:
I *meant* that it wasn't different here; in other words, yes, they are
indeed called "jaws".
Spooky Guy Next Door
Riggs (chr...@gofree.indigo.ie) wrote:
Not exactly. It *can* be inaccurately applied (as in the case with GWB),
and this is far more dangerous than any risk to the speaker of damage that
may be incurred by not saying something as undeniably threatening &
"cool".
Spooky Guy Next Door
(bass.a...@ntlworld.com) wrote:
Correct. I must admit I *did* skip woodwork, but metalwork I was there
for nearly every class. I even made a razor-sharp, unsafe, tiny aluminium
toolbox...
jan sand
wrote:
>
>I actually did no research as to the original concept of Hell. I just
>assumed that whoever described Hell as burning probably wanted to
>convey the idea of constant excruciating pain for eternity, such as
>when a flame is on the skin and that this concept got watered down and
>misdescribed as the condition of being in an extremely hot place (such
>as Phoenix). If someone wants to describe the worst (theoretical)
>condition for a being they would describe excruciating pain for all
>eternity (think of this concept the next time you hit your thumb with
>a hammer). As for my reference to a forever of nothingness, i.e. a
>total elimination of consciousness, I was simply making the point that
>since nothingness is something that may very likely await all of us,
>things could be worse; there could be a real Hell and you could go to
>it.
In my experience with sickness, there are several alternates to pain
that can be distressing. Nausea, disorientation, confusion,
depression, and a few others can be as upsetting as pain.
Jan Sand
jan sand
The implication is that either everybody supports an opinion or is an
enemy of it, and that is somewhat more divisive than helpful. Most
people simply don't give a damn and have more personal things on their
minds. It does not make good sense to make enemies of a large bulk of
the world.
Jan Sand
Maria Conlon
jan sand wrote
>Charles Riggs wrote, in part
>>He that is not with me is against me... , Luke 11.23
>>
>>A fine saying it is, and I take it to heart. It has universal
>>applicability.
>The implication is that either everybody supports an opinion or is
an
>enemy of it, and that is somewhat more divisive than helpful. Most
>people simply don't give a damn and have more personal things on
their
>minds. It does not make good sense to make enemies of a large bulk
of
>the world.
That would seem to be a valid point on a person-to-person level
perhaps as much or even more than on a national level. That is, just
because someone does not support something I do or say does not
*automatically* make that someone an enemy of mine.
But in the sense that President Bush used the saying, I believe any
resulting divisiveness is an indication of head-in-the-sand
thinking. In a matter like terrorism, "you're either for or against"
is true. Countries or people who "simply don't give a damn and have
more personal things on their minds," and thus do not join in, are
shortsighted in the extreme, and, in effect, support terrorism. I
don't like to sound dramatic, but we must stand together against
terrorists. Their evil will not spare any of us, including the
"don't-give-a-damn" crowd.
Okay. Enough from me this morning. I've got to head for work now.
Maria
CyberCypher
news:3c70df3f...@news.mindspring.com:
> On 17 Feb 2002 22:47:38 -0800, dsmy...@hotmail.com (David Smyth)
> wrote:
[...]
>
> In my experience with sickness, there are several alternates to
> pain that can be distressing. Nausea, disorientation, confusion,
> depression, and a few others can be as upsetting as pain.
Depression *is* pain. You must never have been clincally depressed.
--
Franke: Frankly feeling like a ghost.
Simon R. Hughes
The reason it is not a good saying is that there is no place given
to the people who will not stand in the way of the speaker, but will
not go out of their way to help, either.
Jesus also said, "For he that is not against us is on our part"
(Mark 9:40), which is a much better way of looking at things.
Padraig Breathnach
I don't think that Dubya used the term in so limited a way. I believe
that a huge majority of people around the world are opposed to all
forms of terrorism. In that sense, most people would be with the
Americans. But it does not follow for me, as I suspect it does for
Dubya, that I must be with him all the way in his choice of strategy
for dealing with it.
PB
Simon R. Hughes
Those of us who object to the way Bush phrased his Jesus statement
are most probably against terrorism, but not pro America. There is
not only one way to combat terrorism.
By the way, I hear that now is a good time to buy Yen.
Mark Wallace
My mistake. That's what I get for only reading the last additions
to threads.
> I must admit I *did* skip woodwork, but metalwork I was there
> for nearly every class. I even made a razor-sharp, unsafe, tiny
aluminium
> toolbox...
I made a little steam engine, following instructions in a book that
the tutor, himself, had written. My one broke the speed record for
that particular design <*proud of himself*>.
Put me in a metalwork shop now, though, and I'd consider myself
lucky if I managed to successfully make iron filings.
Mark Wallace
"Maria Conlon" <mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:a4qqu8$28rlc$1...@ID-113669.news.dfncis.de...
Stand together like millions of US citizens stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with the IRA, you mean?
"Thy friendship oft has made my heart to ache.
Do be my enemy; for friendship's sake."
(Blake).
Mark Wallace
"Simon R. Hughes" <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.16dae73f1...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Thus Spake Charles Riggs:
> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 14:39:57 +0100, Simon R. Hughes
> > <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >"You're either with us, or you may go to hell!" -- George Bush
> > >(paraphrased)
> >
> > But that version spoils the meaning of "Either you're with me or
> > against me", which doesn't mention the consequences for people
who
> > aren't with me. Jesus, who originated the expression or one
nearly
> > like it, wouldn't have paraphrased it the way you did. He said,
by the
> > way:
> >
> > He that is not with me is against me... , Luke 11.23
> >
> > A fine saying it is, and I take it to heart. It has universal
> > applicability.
>
> The reason it is not a good saying is that there is no place given
> to the people who will not stand in the way of the speaker, but
will
> not go out of their way to help, either.
>
> Jesus also said, "For he that is not against us is on our part"
> (Mark 9:40), which is a much better way of looking at things.
Careful. You'll have Eric on Jesus' case for using the wrong
relative pronoun. I'm not sure Jesus could handle it.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
Little girl lost?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/mother.htm
____________________________
jan sand
<Cyber...@DLO.com> wrote:
>Depression *is* pain. You must never have been clincally depressed.
>Franke: Frankly feeling like a ghost.
I have, perhaps, never been clinically depressed. Perhaps "morose" is
the proper term. It is sufficiently uncomfortable.
Jan Sand
Tony Cooper
>
> >He that is not with me is against me... , Luke 11.23
> >
> >A fine saying it is, and I take it to heart. It has universal
> >applicability.
> >
> >Charles Riggs
>
> The implication is that either everybody supports an opinion or is an
> enemy of it, and that is somewhat more divisive than helpful. Most
> people simply don't give a damn and have more personal things on their
> minds. It does not make good sense to make enemies of a large bulk of
> the world.
In the case of the U.S., most of the enemies we have made
have the result of trying to make friends. How can one not
make a friend, say, of either Isreal or the Arab countries
without making an enemy of the other?
In every case of the U.S. making an enemy, it has been a
result of trying to win over a country or a group within a
country and alienating someone else. I am not, by the way,
implying that we have gone about making friends in the right
way.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots and Tittles
Matti Lamprhey
>
> By the way, I hear that now is a good time to buy Yen.
What about those of us who don't have yens to buy Yens?
Matti
jan sand
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>Thus Spake Charles Riggs:
>>
>>
>> >"You're either with us, or you may go to hell!" -- George Bush
>> >(paraphrased)
>>
>> But that version spoils the meaning of "Either you're with me or
>> against me", which doesn't mention the consequences for people who
>> aren't with me. Jesus, who originated the expression or one nearly
>> like it, wouldn't have paraphrased it the way you did. He said, by the
>> way:
>>
>> He that is not with me is against me... , Luke 11.23
>>
>> A fine saying it is, and I take it to heart. It has universal
>> applicability.
>
>The reason it is not a good saying is that there is no place given
>to the people who will not stand in the way of the speaker, but will
>not go out of their way to help, either.
>
>Jesus also said, "For he that is not against us is on our part"
>(Mark 9:40), which is a much better way of looking at things.
>--
>Simon R. Hughes -
It is questionable to ascribe an attitude to an historic figure that
may or may not be mythical. Since we are unsure at the moment as to
the accuracy of how many Afghans have been accidentally killed a few
days ago, it seems to me weird to be so positive as to what was said a
couple of thousand years ago. Hitler, I believe, was quotable as
saying that all who were not with him were against him and I am
thankful that he so antagonized the world as to rally sufficient
forces against him to persuade him to finally commit suicide. The
present "war" on terrorism is an attempt to coagulate all anger
against the general policies of the United States and capitalism with
all its benefits and uglinesses and which the USA seems intent on
claiming as its basic institutional tenet. Hopefully, the Enron
incident has left enough of a bad taste in the flavor of capitalism as
to generate second thoughts. Terrorism is a blanket label which is
being used to cover many many various and diverse reactions against
establishment policies and is being fashioned as an instrument of
government policy to suppress all criticism of those policies, and,
frankly, the progress of the Bush policies frightens me far more than
terrorism.
Jan Sand
Tony Cooper
>
>
> There's another different word - we use a "pest controller" but you go
> all out and don't pussy foot around, sending for an "exterminator", a
> word which frightens me severely.
>
Nolan". I have to be careful in responding to a certain
poster here not to say Ms. Nolan.
See http://www.trulynolen.com/# for a photo of the type of
vehicle they drive. Can you imagine driving that car? They
must pay their people extra just for this.
Matti Lamprhey
>
> In the case of the U.S., most of the enemies we have made
> have the result of trying to make friends. How can one not
> without making an enemy of the other?
The key word here is Diplomacy, I believe. The patriotic art of lying for
one's country (Bierce). The art of saying "Nice Doggie!" till you can find
a rock (Wynn Catlin). The art of letting somebody else have your way (David
Frost). Lying in state (Oliver Herford)
A diplomat is a man who thinks twice before he says nothing (Fred Sawyer). A
person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look
forward to the trip (Caskie Stinnett). Babies in silk hats playing with
dynamite (Alexander Woollcott?)
Matti
Frances Kemmish
>
> david56 wrote:
> >
> >
> > There's another different word - we use a "pest controller" but you go
> > all out and don't pussy foot around, sending for an "exterminator", a
> > word which frightens me severely.
> >
> One of the leading exterminators in this area is "Truly
> Nolan". I have to be careful in responding to a certain
> poster here not to say Ms. Nolan.
>
> See http://www.trulynolen.com/# for a photo of the type of
> vehicle they drive. Can you imagine driving that car? They
> must pay their people extra just for this.
>
Around here, people expect the ratman to arrive in an unmarked van, so
that the neighbours don't know that they have vermin in the house.
Things seem to be different in Florida.
Fran
LarryLard
news:8bd366b3.02021...@posting.google.com...
> I think that the original concept of Hell has been softened to a place
> of steaming hot pools, Devil's with pitch forks, and incredibly
> uncomfortable air temperatures. The truth is that the concept "Burn in
> Hell" means to have constant excruciating pain (what does "exquisite
> pain" mean)
I don't think it can really be explained; only experienced.
--
Larry Lard
Replies to group please.
John Gilmer
>
> A diplomat is a man who thinks twice before he says nothing (Fred Sawyer).
This is something both the Bushes (41 & 43) AND the present Secretary of
State have not yet learned!
B43 is slightly better than B41. Powell (especially considering his
position as the chief diplomat) just can't keep his mouth shut! UNLESS 43
& Powell are playing some kind of international "Good Cop/Bad Cop" game then
BOTH should learn to count to 100 before speaking in public.
Tony Cooper
Four legged pests are the least of our problems. I hesitate
to say "almost all", but the majority of Florida homeowners
have monthly pest control treatments. It's the bugs and not
the rats. If a person doesn't have a contract with a pest
control service, then they self-treat the house monthly.
It's not sufficient to spray on sight. The pest control
service salesman met us at the door the day we moved down
from Chicago. We declined, but called him two days later.
We've never had mice in our house, but see the occasional
fruit rat in the yard. They rarely enter the house.
Frances Kemmish
In the northeast, I would guess that there are fewer bugs, but there
are still more than I recall from living in England. There are
termites, carpenter ants, and carpenter bees (or maybe they're wasps).
When I was president of my daughter's nursery school, we had all kinds
of pest problems. We had a contract with an exterminator, who would
come monthly to take care of the various pests. He said that, because
the community is close to water, every house has rats, but most of the
time you don't see them. We have certainly had problems in our house
after construction work, which disturbs their nests.
Looking at our local Yellow Pages, most of the pest control services
still advertise that they have "discreet, unmarked" vehicles, whether
they are coming to deal with rats, bugs, or deer.
Fran
Mark Wallace
"Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in
message news:a4r3m8$2eulv$1...@ID-103223.news.dfncis.de...
> "Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> >
> > In the case of the U.S., most of the enemies we have made
> > have the result of trying to make friends. How can one not
> > make a friend, say, of either Israel or the Arab countries
> > without making an enemy of the other?
>
> The key word here is Diplomacy, I believe. The patriotic art of
lying for
> one's country (Bierce). The art of saying "Nice Doggie!" till you
can find
> a rock (Wynn Catlin). The art of letting somebody else have your
way (David
> Frost). Lying in state (Oliver Herford)
>
> A diplomat is a man who thinks twice before he says nothing (Fred
Sawyer). A
> person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you
actually look
> forward to the trip (Caskie Stinnett). Babies in silk hats
playing with
> dynamite (Alexander Woollcott?)
Can I quote you on that?
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Alan Jones
"Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6lh17u07emhvj7q9j...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:18:09 GMT, "Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> said:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> >OED2 (followed by NSOED)
>
> I question the justice of your implication that _The New Shorter Oxford_
> (_NSOED_) follows _The Oxford English Dictionary_ (_OED_).
>
> The following comments appear in the Preface to _NSOED_:
>
> The book was a replacement for the third edition of the Shorter
> Oxford English Dictionary, but does not represent a direct
> revision of its text. The New SOED editors returned to the Oxford
> English Dictionary itself (in later stages the second edition of
> 1989, originally the first edition of 1884-1928 and its
> four-volume Supplement of 1972-86), and reabridged, conflated,
> revised, restructured, added, and updated. Every entry was written
> afresh, taking into account the linguistic evidence of the
> Dictionary Department's extensive quotation files and computer
> databases. Many new words and senses were added, and all were
> reviewed in the light of social and political changes.
>
> I view the _OED_ as an excellent source of historical data, but not as a
> good choice for a modern reference. It has a substantial amount of
> material that has not been revised since it was first written a hundred
> years or so ago, and one reason it has not been revised is that the Oxford
> University Press editors lacked the resources to do a full revision when
> the second edition was made.
>
> I have no reason to disbelieve the editors of _NSOED_ when they say that
> every article in it has been written afresh. I consider it the best
> modern British dictionary available, bar none -- including the _OED_.
>
> Rather than thinking of _NSOED_ as following _OED_, I prefer to assume
> that in the ongoing updating of the online _OED_, the editors will find
> frequent occasion to take a peek at _NSOED_.
Yes, of course that's all true; but a reviewed and re-written entry won't
always reflect new research or fresh interpretation, and for many words
NSOED simply re-phrases or even reproduces in brief what OED2 says, using
one of the existing citations - or so I find when, as always, I look up a
word in both. I agree that NSOED is to be followed when it modifies OED,
though - taking a recent discussion here - it doesn't help at all with the
reasons why BrE and AmE have different standard pronunciations of
"lieutenant". OED does attempt an answer and gives evidence for it.
Alan Jones
John Varela
wrote:
> We've never had mice in our house, but see the occasional
> fruit rat in the yard. They rarely enter the house.
Fruit rat? A new euphemism is born, to join "palmetto bug".
--
John Varela
David Smyth
a person suffering depression and/or a severe anxiety attack would
gladly trade it for a toothache (of course,unrelenting severe chronic
physical pain is naturally accompanied by anxiety).
Eric Walker
[...]
> Hopefully, the Enron
>incident has left enough of a bad taste in the flavor of capitalism as
>to generate second thoughts.
Are we to presume that simple self-serving criminality is
impossible under all economic systems save capitalism?
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Owlcroft House
Frank & Mary B.
jan sand
<ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
.
>
>Are we to presume that simple self-serving criminality is
>impossible under all economic systems save capitalism?
>Eric Walker
I said nothing about alternative systems, merely that capitalism held
no guarantees for power to be accompanied by honesty. The trend of
the government policies for business self regulation will, hopefully,
be under closer scrutiny.
Jan Sand
Earle Jones
david56 <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Bill Schnakenberg wrote:
> > > > I suppose it's not a word I use when visiting your continent, but if I
> > > > ever knew of this spelling difference, I had forgotten it. Your version
> > > > just looks wrong.
> > >
> > > I don't think I was ever aware of this spelling difference, either. It's
> > > in the dictionaries, though. Merriam-Webster says:
> > >
> > > Main Entry: 2 vice
> > > chiefly British variant of VISE
> > >
> > > And from Cambridge International Dictionary of English:
> > >
> > > vice especially British and Australian, American usually vise (TOOL)
> > > noun [C]
> > > a tool with two parts which can be moved together by tightening a
> > > screw so that an object can be held firmly between them while it is
> > > being worked on
>
> Hence exhibiting a "vice-like grip".
*
The Peterson-DeWitt Manufacturing Co. (Nebraska, USA) produces a holding
pliers called a "Vise Grip", which looks like a pair of pliers with a
screw-head in it's left leg.
Handy things, I've had them around for years.
earle
*
Eric Walker
>On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:39:41 -0800 (PST), "Eric Walker"
><ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
>..
>>
>>Are we to presume that simple self-serving criminality is
>>impossible under all economic systems save capitalism?
>
>>Eric Walker
>
>I said nothing about alternative systems, merely that capitalism held
>no guarantees for power to be accompanied by honesty.
This is not something I really want to push, but that sounds to
me very much like, at least by clear implication, a
reiteration. If other systems also hold no such guarantees,
why single out capitalism? The singling out certainly
_implies_ an assertion that it is somehow qualitatively
different.
CyberCypher
news:8bd366b3.02021...@posting.google.com:
True. But toothaches are nothing compared to something like shingles,
which is in itself a serious source of depression and not merely
anxiety, and the more serious the shingles, the more serious the
depression.
Opting for serious chronic physical pain instead of clinical
depression, though, is merely a Hobson's choice.
--
Maria Conlon
Padraig Breathnach wrote
>Maria Conlon wrote:
>>jan sand wrote
>>>The implication is that either everybody supports an opinion or
is
>>an
>>>enemy of it, and that is somewhat more divisive than helpful.
Most
>>>people simply don't give a damn and have more personal things on
>>their
>>>minds. It does not make good sense to make enemies of a large
bulk
>>of
>>>the world.
>>That would seem to be a valid point on a person-to-person level
>>perhaps as much or even more than on a national level. That is,
just
>>because someone does not support something I do or say does not
>>*automatically* make that someone an enemy of mine.
>>
>>But in the sense that President Bush used the saying, I believe
any
>>resulting divisiveness is an indication of head-in-the-sand
>>thinking. In a matter like terrorism, "you're either for or
against"
>>is true. Countries or people who "simply don't give a damn and
have
>>more personal things on their minds," and thus do not join in, are
>>shortsighted in the extreme, and, in effect, support terrorism. I
>>don't like to sound dramatic, but we must stand together against
>>terrorists. Their evil will not spare any of us, including the
>>"don't-give-a-damn" crowd.
>I don't think that Dubya used the term in so limited a way.
You mean the "either for or against" part? Maybe he didn't, but
that's my perception.
>.....I believe
>that a huge majority of people around the world are opposed to all
>forms of terrorism.
While that is true, there is still a too-large portion [1] of the
world population who are all for it if it's against the Americans --
or against the "infidels" wherever they may live.
[1] By "too-large" I mean that any portion in favor of terrorism is
too large a portion.
>......In that sense, most people would be with the
>Americans. But it does not follow for me, as I suspect it does for
>Dubya, that I must be with him all the way in his choice of
strategy
>for dealing with it.
But the attack was made on the US (even though the victims were not
just Americans) and the US -- led by the president -- took the reins
in fighting terrorism on a wide basis. So unless someone else takes
charge and offers other effective methods, I think people do have to
go with Bush's strategies, though advice from allies should be
offered (and taken) as well.
Does that sound too arrogant? I don't mean it to be. But if the
attack had been on, say, the heart of London, and if the English
took charge of fighting terrorism, I would expect the allies to go
along with it. I would expect, as an American, to make their fight
my own, in whatever measure I could contribute.
As I've said before, Padraig, I feel strongly about this whole
issue. I keep thinking about what sort of world my grandson and his
children and their children will live in. If terrorism is to be
rooted out, we must start and finish the job to as much a degree as
humanly possible.
Maria
Maria Conlon
Mark Wallace wrote
>Stand together like millions of US citizens stand
>shoulder-to-shoulder with the IRA, you mean?
I discovered quite a while ago that it's not good for me to discuss
anything with you. No offense, but I have to watch my blood
pressure.
Maria
Tony Cooper
I should have checked the name before I posted this. The
University of Florida Agricultural bulletin says the
following:
"The roof rat ( Rattus rattus , a.k.a. citrus rat, fruit
rat, black rat, or gray rat) is an introduced species of rat
native to southern Asia. It was brought to America on the
first ships to reach the New World and has spread around the
world. This rat is the same species that carried the bubonic
plague around the world and is also the reservoir host for
murine typhus. Roof rats are the worst rodent pest in the
state of Florida and most abundant. The Norway rat ( Rattus
norvegicus ) that is familiar to most people is rare in
Florida."
I've never heard them called "roof rats". They eat citrus
and other fruit, and never seem to be found in houses. We
don't have any citrus trees in our yard, but my adjoining
neighbor does. In the twenty-some years I've lived in this
house, I've seen two in the yard. I told my wife about the
first one, but not the second. She made such a fuss about
the first one that it didn't seem right to tell her about
the second. The first sighting was about six years ago, and
she still won't go near that neighbor's fence.
Frances Kemmish
>
> But the attack was made on the US (even though the victims were not
> just Americans) and the US -- led by the president -- took the reins
> in fighting terrorism on a wide basis. So unless someone else takes
> charge and offers other effective methods, I think people do have to
> go with Bush's strategies, though advice from allies should be
> offered (and taken) as well.
>
People do not have to go with Bush's strategies, if they think that
they are counter-productive, and will encourage more terrorism in the
long term.
> Does that sound too arrogant? I don't mean it to be. But if the
> attack had been on, say, the heart of London, and if the English
> took charge of fighting terrorism, I would expect the allies to go
> along with it. I would expect, as an American, to make their fight
> my own, in whatever measure I could contribute.
>
Unfortunately, when London was being attacked by terrorists, many
Americans carried right on contributing to the cause of those
particular terrorists.
> As I've said before, Padraig, I feel strongly about this whole
> issue. I keep thinking about what sort of world my grandson and his
> children and their children will live in. If terrorism is to be
> rooted out, we must start and finish the job to as much a degree as
> humanly possible.
>
I think that most of us feel strongly about this issue, Maria; we just
don't agree that what the Bush administration has decided to do is the
right thing or the most effective in the long term.
Fran
Eric Walker
[...]
>I think that most of us feel strongly about this issue, Maria; we just
>don't agree that what the Bush administration has decided to do is the
>right thing or the most effective in the long term.
I think it was G.K. Chesterton who observed that saying "My
country, right or wrong" is like saying "My mother, sober or
drunk."
Maria Conlon
Eric Walker wrote
>I think it was G.K. Chesterton who observed that saying "My
>country, right or wrong" is like saying "My mother, sober or
>drunk."
My mother didn't drink, but if she had, she would still have been my
mother.
I'm sure that's not your point, but that is one way of taking it.
Even "my country, right or wrong" can be taken in a little different
way than you probably mean it.
I will support my country. If my country is wrong about something in
my opinion, I will certainly write letters or make calls or vote or
talk to my congressman or whatever I can. What I won't do is
badmouth my country to people in other countries. I don't like it
when people from other countries badmouth their own country to me,
either.
Plus: When people quote the "my country, right or wrong" phrase, the
implication is usually that "my country" *is* wrong and that anyone
who supports "my country" is just not as smart as the ones who
criticize. I don't accept that. There are a lot of people who seem
to think it's somehow worldly or cosmopolitan or sophisticated to
criticize their country. I say "fie" on them.
I could say more but I'll save it for another time.
Maria
Maria Conlon
Frances Kemmish wrote
>Maria Conlon wrote:
>> But the attack was made on the US (even though the victims were
not
>> just Americans) and the US -- led by the president -- took the
reins
>> in fighting terrorism on a wide basis. So unless someone else
takes
>> charge and offers other effective methods, I think people do have
to
>> go with Bush's strategies, though advice from allies should be
>> offered (and taken) as well.
>People do not have to go with Bush's strategies, if they think that
>they are counter-productive, and will encourage more terrorism in
the
>long term.
Do you think, though, that those people should try to come up with
other ways to accomplish the goal? Ways that they feel would not
encourage more terrorism in the long run?
Certainly no one is obliged to go along with bad strategy, but I
think we have to go along with *something* that will defeat
terrorism.
>> Does that sound too arrogant? I don't mean it to be. But if the
>> attack had been on, say, the heart of London, and if the English
>> took charge of fighting terrorism, I would expect the allies to
go
>> along with it. I would expect, as an American, to make their
fight
>> my own, in whatever measure I could contribute.
>Unfortunately, when London was being attacked by terrorists, many
>Americans carried right on contributing to the cause of those
>particular terrorists.
I am not familiar with what you speak of unless you are talking of
the IRA. And I am not well-versed enough in that situation to
discuss it. My apologies. (I do think we were of aid during WWII,
though that was a different situation.)
>> As I've said before, Padraig, I feel strongly about this whole
>> issue. I keep thinking about what sort of world my grandson and
his
>> children and their children will live in. If terrorism is to be
>> rooted out, we must start and finish the job to as much a degree
as
>> humanly possible.
>I think that most of us feel strongly about this issue, Maria; we
just
>don't agree that what the Bush administration has decided to do is
the
>right thing or the most effective in the long term.
Okay, but what is? What are we to do? Even if we were to change all
our policies and free all the detainees and treat them all like
saints (I'm getting carried away here), the terrorists would not
cease their activities, IMO. They want to see Americans die. The
want to kill all the infidels. We -- you and I and even the Queen of
England -- are probably "infidels."
So what is the solution? Maybe there's none. That's a scary thought.
Maria
Mark Wallace
"Maria Conlon" <mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:a4sj2b$2rmi8$1...@ID-113669.news.dfncis.de...
Yes, I have that effect on women.
Can't help it, sorry.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Doctor Charles.
You can trust him.
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/doc01.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Wallace
Welcome to the grey area.
You just have to take one more step, toward the "Terrorists are
people, too; people with families, who believe what they are doing
is right" department, and you'll be well on your way to finding
'solutions' (which will also be grey in colour).
It's no more scary than anything else in life.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
Little girl lost?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/mother.htm
____________________________
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Amen...
Are you sure?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Alan Jones
>
> Eric Walker wrote
>
> >I think it was G.K. Chesterton who observed that saying "My
> >country, right or wrong" is like saying "My mother, sober or
> >drunk."
>
> My mother didn't drink, but if she had, she would still have been my
> mother.
>
> I'm sure that's not your point, but that is one way of taking it.
But if, when drunk, your mother had smashed the neighbours' windows and
vomited on their doorstep, would you have said "Sorry - I'm so ashamed of
her" and put things right, or backed her up and said "Well, she's my mother
and that's that"?
> I will support my country.
Do you mean your country or your country's current government?
In another posting you responded to Frances Kemmish's entirely accurate
comment, "Unfortunately, when London was being attacked by terrorists, many
Americans carried right on contributing to the cause of those particular
terrorists" by saying "I am not familiar with what you speak of unless you
are talking of the IRA. And I am not well-versed enough in that situation to
discuss it." This seems to imply that there is something to discuss - that
perhaps the destruction of London buildings and the murder of its citizens
could be arguably justified if one only knew more. The scale of death and
devastation is not remotely comparable, but you must allow us in UK to see
the 11 September attacks as in principle similar to the IRA or neo-IRA
campaign of bombing: the use of terrible violence to frighten a government
into acting otherwise than it would have done and its people to accept or
even urge that change of policy. Perhaps in both cases there is also a
desire by the terrorists to exact revenge for past wrongs, or what they see
as wrongs, and certainly there is a disregard for the individuals who may or
must suffer in the attack. At least you in US may now understand how
bitterly we resented the enthusiastic subscription of American money to
Irish nationalist causes, and how much we welcomed the attempts of President
Clinton and Senator Mitchell to mediate in the conflict, however modest the
results so far.
The a.e.u. and a.u.e. juistification for writing about these things is
presumably the meaning of the word "terrorism". I've just given mine, and
think it also applies to the use of the atomic bomb and the annihilation by
fire-bombing of German cities: Dresden and Hiroshima were not, I think,
primarily military targets and most of those who died were as much "innocent
victims" as those who died in the Twin Towers .But perhaps you regard all
citizens as implicated in the policies and actions of their goverments: "I
will support my country".
Alan Jones
Matti Lamprhey
> [...]
> The a.e.u. and a.u.e. juistification for writing about these things is
> presumably the meaning of the word "terrorism". I've just given mine, and
> think it also applies to the use of the atomic bomb and the annihilation
> by fire-bombing of German cities: Dresden and Hiroshima were not, I
> think, primarily military targets and most of those who died were as much
I've just been reading John Simpson's _A Mad World, My Masters_ in which he
describes how "Bomber" Harris had a film made of the Dresden raid and showed
it to a small audience of senior British military personnel. As the lights
came up, Churchill was weeping and was heard to ask "Are we beasts, that we
must do these things?"
Matti
Charles Riggs
<Cyber...@DLO.com> wrote:
>jan...@mindspring.com (jan sand) held forth in
>news:3c70df3f...@news.mindspring.com:
>
>> On 17 Feb 2002 22:47:38 -0800, dsmy...@hotmail.com (David Smyth)
>> wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> In my experience with sickness, there are several alternates to
>> pain that can be distressing. Nausea, disorientation, confusion,
>> depression, and a few others can be as upsetting as pain.
>
>Depression *is* pain. You must never have been clincally depressed.
It is a different type of pain from what we normally call pain. The
pain of clinical depression is unique. Do you agree?
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>CyberCypher <Cyber...@DLO.com> wrote in message news:<Xns91B9CF0112D66...@139.175.55.249>...
>> jan...@mindspring.com (jan sand) held forth in
>> news:3c70df3f...@news.mindspring.com:
>>
>> > On 17 Feb 2002 22:47:38 -0800, dsmy...@hotmail.com (David Smyth)
>> > wrote:
>> [...]
>> >
>> > In my experience with sickness, there are several alternates to
>> > pain that can be distressing. Nausea, disorientation, confusion,
>> > depression, and a few others can be as upsetting as pain.
>>
>> Depression *is* pain. You must never have been clincally depressed.
>
>a person suffering depression and/or a severe anxiety attack would
>gladly trade it for a toothache (of course,unrelenting severe chronic
>physical pain is naturally accompanied by anxiety).
Make that ten toothaches plus a broken foot.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<Cyber...@DLO.com> wrote:
>dsmy...@hotmail.com (David Smyth) held forth in
>news:8bd366b3.02021...@posting.google.com:
>
>> CyberCypher <Cyber...@DLO.com> wrote in message
>> news:<Xns91B9CF0112D66...@139.175.55.249>...
>>> jan...@mindspring.com (jan sand) held forth in
>>> news:3c70df3f...@news.mindspring.com:
>>>
>>> > On 17 Feb 2002 22:47:38 -0800, dsmy...@hotmail.com (David
>>> > Smyth) wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> >
>>> > In my experience with sickness, there are several alternates to
>>> > pain that can be distressing. Nausea, disorientation,
>>> > confusion, depression, and a few others can be as upsetting as
>>> > pain.
>>>
>>> Depression *is* pain. You must never have been clincally
>>> depressed.
>>
>> a person suffering depression and/or a severe anxiety attack would
>> gladly trade it for a toothache (of course,unrelenting severe
>> chronic physical pain is naturally accompanied by anxiety).
>
>True. But toothaches are nothing compared to something like shingles,
>which is in itself a serious source of depression and not merely
>anxiety, and the more serious the shingles, the more serious the
>depression.
But I thought we were talking about clinical depression, not ordinary
depression. Clinical depression has no known cause, unless you want to
consider having a gene for it as a cause for its coming and going.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
>People do not have to go with Bush's strategies, if they think that
>they are counter-productive, and will encourage more terrorism in the
>long term.
True. Anyone is free to propose a better solution to the problem if
they think they have a wiser solution to the problem than the leaders
in America and Britain have. Whether those governments choose to
listen to them is another story.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>Those of us who object to the way Bush phrased his Jesus statement
>are most probably against terrorism, but not pro America.
Many can object to his statement and still be pro America.
>There is
>not only one way to combat terrorism.
Write a letter proposing a better one and send it your PM and your
representative in government.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 06:46:32 +0000, Charles Riggs
><chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 14:39:57 +0100, Simon R. Hughes
>><shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"You're either with us, or you may go to hell!" -- George Bush
>>>(paraphrased)
>>
>>But that version spoils the meaning of "Either you're with me or
>>against me", which doesn't mention the consequences for people who
>>aren't with me. Jesus, who originated the expression or one nearly
>>like it, wouldn't have paraphrased it the way you did. He said, by the
>>way:
>>
>>He that is not with me is against me... , Luke 11.23
>>
>>A fine saying it is, and I take it to heart. It has universal
>>applicability.
>>
>>Charles Riggs
>
>The implication is that either everybody supports an opinion or is an
>enemy of it, and that is somewhat more divisive than helpful. Most
>people simply don't give a damn and have more personal things on their
>minds. It does not make good sense to make enemies of a large bulk of
>the world.
I agree, but it makes sense, to me, to ignore those who aren't with
me. Generally I have a choice of who I associate with. I don't include
in that group to ignore, people who merely have different opinions
from mine.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>Eric Walker wrote
>
>>I think it was G.K. Chesterton who observed that saying "My
>>country, right or wrong" is like saying "My mother, sober or
>>drunk."
>
>My mother didn't drink, but if she had, she would still have been my
>mother.
My mother did drink in her early days and I can assure you she was
still my mother. I think it was a poor analogy. I am free to protest
American policy and that is one reason I'm glad to be a citizen of a
free country. My country, right or wrong, is dangerous thinking.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:26:45 +0100, Simon R. Hughes
><shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>
>>Thus Spake Charles Riggs:
>>>He said, by the way:
>>>
>>> He that is not with me is against me... , Luke 11.23
>>>
>>> A fine saying it is, and I take it to heart. It has universal
>>> applicability.
>>
>>The reason it is not a good saying is that there is no place given
>>to the people who will not stand in the way of the speaker, but will
>>not go out of their way to help, either.
True enough. The statement takes a somewhat black and white view.
Jesus was just that sort of man, and either you're with him or against
him. No fair bowing out.
>>Jesus also said, "For he that is not against us is on our part"
>>(Mark 9:40), which is a much better way of looking at things.
Maybe, but I don't think it'd past muster in AUE. I like to think that
Luke was the better historian. Better English and a better ring to his
quote from Jesus, no?
>>Simon R. Hughes -
>
>It is questionable to ascribe an attitude to an historic figure that
>may or may not be mythical. Since we are unsure at the moment as to
>the accuracy of how many Afghans have been accidentally killed a few
>days ago, it seems to me weird to be so positive as to what was said a
>couple of thousand years ago.
Whether Jesus existed or didn't is relatively unimportant. His
teachings and the words we ascribe to him, accurate or not, is what is
important. I will say the same about the Buddha, in spades.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>jan sand wrote:
>>
>> >He that is not with me is against me... , Luke 11.23
>> >
>> >A fine saying it is, and I take it to heart. It has universal
>> >applicability.
>> >
>> >Charles Riggs
>>
>> The implication is that either everybody supports an opinion or is an
>> enemy of it, and that is somewhat more divisive than helpful. Most
>> people simply don't give a damn and have more personal things on their
>> minds. It does not make good sense to make enemies of a large bulk of
>> the world.
>
>In the case of the U.S., most of the enemies we have made
>have the result of trying to make friends. How can one not
>make a friend, say, of either Isreal or the Arab countries
>without making an enemy of the other?
Very tricky, but I think it would be possible. If we could promote the
establishment of a Palestinian state, without offending Israel,
thereby bringing peace, hopefully, to the area, I see no reason why we
couldn't be friends with Israel, the Palestinians, and perhaps many
other Arab nations. Where is Henry Kissinger? (Matti phrased that
better.)
Charles Riggs
Eric Walker
news:a4sn86$2o80o$1...@ID-113669.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Eric Walker wrote
>
> >I think it was G.K. Chesterton who observed that saying "My
> >country, right or wrong" is like saying "My mother, sober or
> >drunk."
>
> My mother didn't drink, but if she had, she would still have been my
> mother.
>
> I'm sure that's not your point, but that is one way of taking it.
First, the exact quotation in full:
"'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot
would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is
like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.'"
That had your mother been a drinker she would still have been
your mother is, I would think, just the point. She's your
mother: are you pleased that she is drunk? Are you proud of
it, or her? Do you encourage her in her drunkenness? She
remains your mother, and you take such care of her as
circumstances allow; but you regret her drunkenness, you do not
exult in it. The pseudo-patriot, the chauvinist, exults in his
country's acts, right or wrong--that is the gravamen of the
original remark.
(Chesterton much opposed the Boer War, to which I believe the
quotation pertains, on moral grounds, but supported it in WWI
with extreme vigor, also on moral grounds.)
Eric Walker
[...]
>>There is
>>not only one way to combat terrorism.
>
>Write a letter proposing a better one and send it your PM and your
>representative in government.
Or save a stamp and make a paper airplane of it, or wipe your
butt with it: the effect will be much the same, rather like
buying or not buying a lottery ticket.
Why do we still call them "representatives"?