What is a troll? (was: How valuable is Jesus?)
Ed Poor
there
>to see what he was peddling.
>
>I suppose you could say he was on an extended TROLL there too, with a
>lot of polite but barbed references to the other posters creeping in
>occassionally. Still, let's see what he's made of.
>
>M.
Thanks. I'm not sure how a 'troll' is defined here. I thought it was a
poster who just wants to provoke readers, but doesn't want any real
discussion. We have some on our church's newsgroup
(alt.religion.unification), and I've kill-filed a couple of them.
Ed Poor
Michael O'Neill
>
> >As usual David, you are right on the button. I lurked for a while
> there
> >to see what he was peddling.
> >
> >I suppose you could say he was on an extended TROLL there too, with a
> >lot of polite but barbed references to the other posters creeping in
> >occassionally. Still, let's see what he's made of.
> >
> >M.
>
> Thanks.
Don't thank me.
> I'm not sure how a 'troll' is defined here.
The same as its defined all over Usenet Ed.
> I thought it was a
> poster who just wants to provoke readers, but doesn't want any real
> discussion.
No Ed, that's not how a TROLL is defined.
A TROLL is defined as "a post designed to generate a large number of
responses thus disrupting the proper business of the newsgroup".
> We have some on our church's newsgroup
> (alt.religion.unification), and I've kill-filed a couple of them.
Ohhh of that I'm sure. We're usually more tolerant here in aft. We let
them make fools of themselves and amuse us for a while and then we refer
them to their ISP.
But you're a religious fundamentalist aren't you Ed? You wouldn't know
what tolerance is, would you? Or maybe you'd tolerate things just so
long as they were going your way ehhhh, Ed? What's the story Ed?
Did you not in fact have a Master Plan to post to aft and rabt to
generate off topic cross-posts back to your home group so you could
whinge about others TROLLing back there.
Are you in fact a sekrit hater of the Reverend Moon? Did you infiltrate
his Newsgroup just to lure people there from other newsgroups to disrupt
it? May your soul writh eternally in unmitigated damnation if you did.
> Ed Poor
Ed Poor? Is that your given name, or did it adopt you?
M.
Ed Poor
disruptive. I apologize, and I will focus on other threads for the
time being.
Fair enough?
Ed Poor
"very good, always helps"
:--)
Michael O'Neill wrote in message <3B800138...@indigo.ie>...
Ed Poor
>> (alt.religion.unification), and I've kill-filed a couple of them.
>
>Ohhh of that I'm sure. We're usually more tolerant here in aft. We
let
>them make fools of themselves and amuse us for a while and then we
refer
>them to their ISP.
I'm glad I amuse you. Want to see me jump on a table and sing? Hm,
it's hard to balance up here with one hand in my pocket; let's hope I
don't fall off and break up our host's crockery.
>But you're a religious fundamentalist aren't you Ed? You wouldn't
know
>what tolerance is, would you? Or maybe you'd tolerate things just so
>long as they were going your way ehhhh, Ed? What's the story Ed?
I'm a firm believer in my religion, if that's what you mean: dyed in
the woll, you might say. I'm sorry if I'm not as tolerant as you are.
Perhaps I can learn from you. BTW, how am I doing on snipping?
>Did you not in fact have a Master Plan to post to aft and rabt to
>generate off topic cross-posts back to your home group so you could
>whinge about others TROLLing back there.
Actually, all I wanted was some discussion on human value and
perfection, and I had a 'bright idea' that my favorite book might be a
good reference point. I bet Bilbo had no idea how valuable it was. May
I now segue into speculating whether humanity has any idea how
valuable Jesus is, or would that be trolling?
>Are you in fact a sekrit hater of the Reverend Moon? Did you
infiltrate
>his Newsgroup just to lure people there from other newsgroups to
disrupt
>it? May your soul writh eternally in unmitigated damnation if you
did.
If you feel this is a disruption, why don't you e-mail me privately or
snip aft and rabt and just tell me off once and for all? The way it's
going, it feels like going through a gauntlet.
>Ed Poor? Is that your given name, or did it adopt you?
>
>M.
Glad I could amuse you.
E.
Michael O'Neill
>
> I see that you (and several others) feel my mithril post was
> disruptive. I apologize, and I will focus on other threads for the
> time being.
>
> Fair enough?
>
> Ed Poor
> "very good, always helps"
> :--)
<snip>
Oh Ed, you've played true to form again. Not a single answer to any
issue in raised in my post.
You are a true TROLL.
Enjoy your stay. They're a terrible shower of atheistic communists here
anyway... you might bring them a little bit of religion.
M.
Leo Fellmann
"Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3B800138...@indigo.ie...
> Ed Poor wrote:
> >
> > >As usual David, you are right on the button. I lurked for a while
> > there
> > >to see what he was peddling.
> > >
> > >I suppose you could say he was on an extended TROLL there too, with a
> > >lot of polite but barbed references to the other posters creeping in
> > >occassionally. Still, let's see what he's made of.
> > >
> > >M.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> Don't thank me.
>
> > I'm not sure how a 'troll' is defined here.
>
> The same as its defined all over Usenet Ed.
>
>
> > I thought it was a
> > poster who just wants to provoke readers, but doesn't want any real
> > discussion.
>
> No Ed, that's not how a TROLL is defined.
>
> A TROLL is defined as "a post designed to generate a large number of
> responses thus disrupting the proper business of the newsgroup".
<snip rather rude reply>
You mean like the rest of your post?
I must say, I've just got into this NG and honestly, it seems like I should
look at alt.fan.tolkien instead. Maybe it's quieter?
Leo Fellmann
"Leo Fellmann" <l.fel...@free.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:UiXf7.216$5m1.4...@nnrp1.proxad.net...
> I must say, I've just got into this NG and honestly, it seems like I
should
> look at alt.fan.tolkien instead. Maybe it's quieter?
Er.. I meant rec.arts.books.tolkien really. Sorry folks :)
Stan Brown
>Thanks. I'm not sure how a 'troll' is defined here. I thought it was a
>poster who just wants to provoke readers, but doesn't want any real
>discussion. We have some on our church's newsgroup
>(alt.religion.unification), and I've kill-filed a couple of them.
That's a fair definition. And the "How valuable is Jesus" thread is
a fair example, at least with respect to rec.arts.books.tolkien.
Who started that one, anyway? Oh yeah ...
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/
Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Ed Poor
Catholic, eh?
Okay, I guess it's a taboo subject. Fair enough.
Ed Poor
Stan Brown wrote in message ...
Öjevind Lång
You SHOULD be sorry! Anyway, RABT is not quieter than this newsgroup, what
with its interminable, giant thread about abortions-homosexuality-capital
punishment-jail rapes-Catholicism-liberalism-fundamentalism-greedy
bishops-taxes and a great number of other things... It is like a scab: many
people, myself included, can't help picking at it. Anyway, this tread is
posted in RABT too, though I have removed the followup to
alt.religion.unification.
A question: Do you think missionaries for some religion or other should
make posts in Tolkien newsgroups pretending that they are interested in
Tolkien but in reality clearly hoping to convert people to their faith?
Öjevind
Aris Katsaris
Ed Poor <ed....@att.net> wrote in message
news:rHZf7.23704$1p1.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> So I can't mention Jesus on a newsgroup devoted to a book by a devoted
> Catholic, eh?
You can mention him. But it's dishonest to try and make your posts look like
having any connection with Tolkien when your purpose is just
proselytisation (sp?).
It's like I came to your alt.religion.unification newsgroup and said
something
like "Hey your newsgroup has the letter U in its name. U is rather curvy,
which reminds me of the curvy road that Gandalf and Pippin had to take
as they approached Minas Tirith - why don't we discuss Minas Tirith
architecture while we are it!"
You *really* don't get how ridiculous your "The Mithril coat was precious,
but Jesus is even more precious. Let us discuss the preciousness of
Jesus!" was, do you?
Aris Katsaris
Leo Fellmann
"Öjevind Lång" <ojevin...@swipnet.se> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Jo1g7.10095$5t1....@nntpserver.swip.net...
> Leo Fellmann hath written:
>
> >"Leo Fellmann" <l.fel...@free.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >news:UiXf7.216$5m1.4...@nnrp1.proxad.net...
> >> I must say, I've just got into this NG and honestly, it seems like I
> >should
> >> look at alt.fan.tolkien instead. Maybe it's quieter?
> >
> >Er.. I meant rec.arts.books.tolkien really. Sorry folks :)
>
>
> You SHOULD be sorry! Anyway, RABT is not quieter than this newsgroup, what
> with its interminable, giant thread about abortions-homosexuality-capital
> punishment-jail rapes-Catholicism-liberalism-fundamentalism-greedy
> bishops-taxes and a great number of other things... It is like a scab:
many
> people, myself included, can't help picking at it. Anyway, this tread is
> posted in RABT too, though I have removed the followup to
> alt.religion.unification.
I should think so!
> A question: Do you think missionaries for some religion or other should
> make posts in Tolkien newsgroups pretending that they are interested in
> Tolkien but in reality clearly hoping to convert people to their faith?
I'm a fairly firm atheist, but I like my debates :)
Well, actually, not in alt.fan.tolkien. But the post wasn't *that* bad - It
was nothing OTT,as us British would say.
Leo Fellmann
"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:9lqj39$fh0$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
Well, he had a sort-of-point there, and it was not such a bad analogy. The
only problem was that it was slightly OT in this NG, yes.
Ed Poor
>
>> So I can't mention Jesus on a newsgroup devoted to a book by
>>a devoted Catholic, eh?
>
>You can mention him. But it's dishonest to try and make your
>posts look like having any connection with Tolkien when your
>purpose is just proselytisation (sp?).
>
>It's like I came to your alt.religion.unification newsgroup and
>said something like "Hey your newsgroup has the letter U in
>its name. U is rather curvy, which reminds me of the curvy
>road that Gandalf and Pippin had to take as they approached
>Minas Tirith - why don't we discuss Minas Tirith architecture
>while we are it!"
ROTFL, okay, I get your point: the connection was too remote to make
sense to anyone but a one-track mind like mine.
BTW, the tower that reached up to heaven reminds me of the tower of
Babel. Let's discuss this! (he, he, just kidding)
>>You *really* don't get how ridiculous your "The Mithril coat
>was precious, but Jesus is even more precious. Let us discuss
>the preciousness of Jesus!" was, do you?
>
>Aris Katsaris
No, it seems reasonable to me, just as it seems reasonable to me that
Gandalf would spend all his time looking out for other people's
interests instead of acquiring riches and a kingdom (and a wife).
Excuse me, my gangrel companion wants to say something: "But maybe
there's something else that's preciousss to them, something they wants
. . . tricksy, false?" Down, boy! Or you'll feel Sting! (Sorry about
that, he's incorrigible.)
All kidding aside, you and others have made it emphatically clear that
there is to be a sharp division between Fantasy -- which gets
discussed on aft & rabt -- and Religion -- which is relegated to the
alt.religion hierarchy. The only exception seems to be an extended
thread called 'Creation in Tolkien & Lewis'.
You guys really ought to assign me someone like Baranor's grandson to
show me around.
Ed Poor
Blob
or just *Plonk!*
Ed Poor
should
>make posts in Tolkien newsgroups pretending that they are interested
in
>Tolkien but in reality clearly hoping to convert people to their
faith?
>
>Öjevind
Even if I had come with that hope, I wouldn't have retained it by now.
I had one idea to discuss, that's all. But I don't like being shouted
down.
Try, "Who is your favorite hobbit?" for a more on-topic thread.
Cheers,
rand mair fheal
>>was precious, but Jesus is even more precious. Let us discuss
>>the preciousness of Jesus!" was, do you?
jrrt was very antihoarding
as expressed by the many comments on dwarves and their pursuit of gold
>No, it seems reasonable to me, just as it seems reasonable to me that
>Gandalf would spend all his time looking out for other people's
>interests instead of acquiring riches and a kingdom (and a wife).
saruman did get trapped in his greed and lust
and radagasts fate sounds similar to another lesser issue
getting to caught up in this world and eschewing heaven for earth
maiar were only as biological as they chose to be
so things like sex were not the most natural or desirous things to their nature
>All kidding aside, you and others have made it emphatically clear that
>there is to be a sharp division between Fantasy -- which gets
>discussed on aft & rabt -- and Religion -- which is relegated to the
>alt.religion hierarchy. The only exception seems to be an extended
>thread called 'Creation in Tolkien & Lewis'.
it was thing to discuss how jrrts christian views influenced his stories
Michael O'Neill
<snip>
> <snip rather rude reply>
>
> You mean like the rest of your post?
> I must say, I've just got into this NG and honestly, it seems like I should
> look at alt.fan.tolkien instead. Maybe it's quieter?
Oh Leo!
You're another clueless newbie! Two in one week! I love it!
LOL!
I'm only joking with you Leo, stop that bmubbering...
When you've looked around Usenet for a bit, learnt to use a search
engine [google has a good one] and learnt who the players are in any
given group then you might be in a position to judge the situation a
little better than you just did.
I cannot criticise you for what you posted, I can only hope you'll do a
little more research before posting next time - like looking in the
Moonies group and see Ed Poors posts there before you criticise my
stance.
I see you're a quick learner and that you own up to your mistakes
quickly. Essential attributes for aft/rabt and helps to avoid flame
wars. I see also that Oje has swung in on your thread. ENjoy.
M.
P.S. You're quite correct about rabt being a rowdy lot of
self-opinonated half-orcs. Stick wit hus kid, you'll never be bored. Not
so long as Ed Poor is here anyways...
Michael O'Neill
>
> >> We have some on our church's newsgroup
> >> (alt.religion.unification), and I've kill-filed a couple of them.
> >
> >Ohhh of that I'm sure. We're usually more tolerant here in aft. We
> let
> >them make fools of themselves and amuse us for a while and then we
> refer
> >them to their ISP.
>
> I'm glad I amuse you.
Tut, tut. You're not really glad at all Ed, are you? A fundie like you
getting slagged off in public?
LOL!
> Want to see me jump on a table and sing? Hm,
> it's hard to balance up here with one hand in my pocket; let's hope I
> don't fall off and break up our host's crockery.
No Ed. The mere fact that you follow a fundamentalist religion is enough
to amuse me.
*mheh*
> >But you're a religious fundamentalist aren't you Ed? You wouldn't
> know
> >what tolerance is, would you? Or maybe you'd tolerate things just so
> >long as they were going your way ehhhh, Ed? What's the story Ed?
> I'm a firm believer in my religion, if that's what you mean: dyed in
> the woll, you might say. I'm sorry if I'm not as tolerant as you are.
> Perhaps I can learn from you. BTW, how am I doing on snipping?
You are interspersing *your* comments, not snipping *mine* Ed.
Distractive comments don't work on me as easily as they do on the
clueless newbies you TROLL into your church in real life, I'm afraid.
> >Did you not in fact have a Master Plan to post to aft and rabt to
> >generate off topic cross-posts back to your home group so you could
> >whinge about others TROLLing back there.
>
> Actually, all I wanted was some discussion on human value and
> perfection, and I had a 'bright idea' that my favorite book might be a
> good reference point. I bet Bilbo had no idea how valuable it was. May
> I now segue into speculating whether humanity has any idea how
> valuable Jesus is, or would that be trolling?
You can segue into whatever you want Ed. I don't own Usenet. FWIW
Tolkien is on record as hating allegory in all its forms and the mere
mention of Christ raises the hackles of like minded Tolkienites.
As for placing a vlue on Jesus, what a question to raise!!!
Perhaps Rev. Moon will issue a unitarian fatwa against me for taking the
piss out of you over it. Or on you for daring to be so blasphemous to
place a value on Christ. I ask you!
Placing a value on something whose value cannot be imagined. What a
terrible travesty of religious inquiry that would be.
I've heard of the Church of Christ Scientist, but not Christ Monetarist!
> >Are you in fact a sekrit hater of the Reverend Moon? Did you
> infiltrate
> >his Newsgroup just to lure people there from other newsgroups to
> disrupt
> >it? May your soul writh eternally in unmitigated damnation if you
> did.
>
> If you feel this is a disruption, why don't you e-mail me privately or
> snip aft and rabt and just tell me off once and for all? The way it's
> going, it feels like going through a gauntlet.
Does it Ed? Do you perhaps feel you stepped outside your yardsticks in
coming to aft? Don't you relise that people approach whatever they
conceive the fountainhead of creation/God/whatever to be in many
different ways? Some do it by reading Tolkien. Some do it by practising
Catholicism. Or Protestantism. Or Methodism. Or the Muslim faith. Or the
Jewish religion.
Or perhaps some of them don't believe the fountainhead of
creation/GOd/whatever needs approaching at all and are practising [sic]
atheists trying to live good lives and respecting their fellow man.
Hell! Some of them could be Bishops or Nuns into ensuring their souls
salvation by inflicting pain on themselves or that ultimate sexual
perversion, chastity!
ROTFLMAO!
> >Ed Poor? Is that your given name, or did it adopt you?
> >
> >M.
>
> Glad I could amuse you.
>
> E.
We haven't even begun Ed. I'm merely trying to point you towards a few
definitions of terms - so you'll understand, later on. Then again, you
might just re-read the header, which really says it all.
M.
Aris Katsaris
> Aris Katsaris wrote in message <9lqj39$fh0$1...@usenet.otenet.gr>...
> >
> >> So I can't mention Jesus on a newsgroup devoted to a book by
> >>a devoted Catholic, eh?
> >
> >You can mention him. But it's dishonest to try and make your
> >posts look like having any connection with Tolkien when your
> >purpose is just proselytisation (sp?).
> >
> >It's like I came to your alt.religion.unification newsgroup and
> >said something like "Hey your newsgroup has the letter U in
> >its name. U is rather curvy, which reminds me of the curvy
> >road that Gandalf and Pippin had to take as they approached
> >Minas Tirith - why don't we discuss Minas Tirith architecture
> >while we are it!"
>
>
> ROTFL, okay, I get your point: the connection was too remote to make
> sense to anyone but a one-track mind like mine.
Exactly.
> All kidding aside, you and others have made it emphatically clear that
> there is to be a sharp division between Fantasy -- which gets
> discussed on aft & rabt -- and Religion -- which is relegated to the
> alt.religion hierarchy. The only exception seems to be an extended
> thread called 'Creation in Tolkien & Lewis'.
Wrong both about the rule and the exception.... Religion can be discussed
on-topic here when it pertains to Tolkien's writings (and it does - a lot).
And
it can be occasionally discussed off-topic as politics or any other thing is
occasionally discussed. But many were offended when you tried to start
an off-topic discussion and present it as an on-topic one.
Aris Katsaris
Michael O'Neill
>
> > A question: Do you think missionaries for some religion or other
> should
> >make posts in Tolkien newsgroups pretending that they are interested
> in
> >Tolkien but in reality clearly hoping to convert people to their
> faith?
> >
> >Öjevind
>
> Even if I had come with that hope, I wouldn't have retained it by now.
> I had one idea to discuss, that's all. But I don't like being shouted
> down.
<snip>
Your hope Ed, was terrible to behold. Tolkien hated allegory and your
post smacked of it terribly, embarrassingly, and annoyingly.
M.
BTW Watching an self-admitted Dyed-in-the-Wool Unitarian telling a
newsgroup he has left his missionary zeal at home is like watching an
Orc play with Hobbits.
Steuard Jensen
<UiXf7.216$5m1.4...@nnrp1.proxad.net>:
> "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> schrieb:
> > A TROLL is defined as "a post designed to generate a large number of
> > responses thus disrupting the proper business of the newsgroup".
> <snip rather rude reply>
> You mean like the rest of your post?
Michael O'Neill tends to be a little, er, direct at times. I usually
try to take his less polite offerings with quite a few grains of salt,
which improves their flavor immensely. :)
> I must say, I've just got into this NG and honestly, it seems like I
> should look at alt.fan.tolkien instead. Maybe it's quieter?
If you ignore the giant, sprawling "Creation in Tolkien and Lewis"
thread (and its descendants), it's really not too bad (or so I like to
think, anyway). I really do hope that the folks discussing, well,
whatever it is they're discussing there now (capital punishment?) will
come to their senses before too long and get back to discussing
Tolkien: that thread seems to be sapping a good bit of the energy that
the group would normally put toward actual on-topic discussions. The
Barrow-blades thread has been interesting, though, and there have been
a handful of other interesting on-topic discussions recently, too. :)
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
<3B810CE0...@indigo.ie>:
> you getting slagged off in public?
ENOUGH, Michael. Sheesh. Ed seems to have learned the ropes around
here at least to some degree; it's well past the time that you and
everyone else who's still going after him should have given him a
second chance. I don't agree with his beliefs any more than you do,
but I don't agree with FotW's either, and he and I seem to get along
just fine. Personal attacks on each others' religions are exceedingly
inappropriate for the Tolkien groups. I don't think that anything you
could say online is going to "save" Ed here from his beliefs, any more
than anything he could say will "save" you from yours. Right now,
you're just being abusive... and more so than usual.
Steuard Jensen
Laurie Forbes
"Steuard Jensen" <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:6Q8g7.222$N4.2...@news.uchicago.edu...
> Quoth Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> in article
> <3B810CE0...@indigo.ie>:
> > Tut, tut. You're not really glad at all Ed, are you? A fundie like
> > you getting slagged off in public?
> ... Sheesh.
You watch your language, mister!
Michael O'Neill
> Quoth Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> in article
<snip whine>
> Right now, you're just being abusive... and more so than usual.
How quickly they forget. Perhaps you sneed a reminder of what I'm really
like flaming someone... but I digress.
Steuard, I was being VERY restrained in my responses to Ed Poor. He is a
self-confessed dyed in the wool believer in a religion which uses, ehrm,
shall we say, *interesting* methods to win converts.
My posts never touched on *what* he believes, but on the more important
fact that he *believes* and what his church might do to get others to
believe.
Please note that not-so-subtle difference.
I also asked him whether or not he was TROLLing all three newsgroups
including his own, since trying to put a material value on the Godhead
would be a form of blasphemy in many religious circles, and a most
inappropriate inquiry in others.
There is a very serious inference to be drawn frmo the fact that Ed Poor
asked that question in three newsgroups. Either Ed Poor is, as he says,
a believer [however misguided and guileless] looking to broaden his
circle of acquaintances or he is a hypocrite, a non-believer and a
TROLL.
I'm merely following a definite line of inquiry. I'm very surprised you
didn't pick up the inference or where I was going with it.
May I remind you what fundamentalists have brought to grace the world?
Wars, inquisitions, genocide and on a lesser scale mental breakdowns,
public villification of intellectuals and broken families.
I seldom get offended enough to really take a dislike to someone but the
word games Ed Poor has been playing may yet prove my suspicion correct.
The last time I heard so many lame loaded questions from one person in
one week was from the priest in my civics class in secondary school.
I'm wondering if he's a priest of their religion.
Newsgroup line restored.
M.
Leo Fellmann
"Steuard Jensen" <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:9w8g7.220$N4.2...@news.uchicago.edu...
> Quoth "Leo Fellmann" <l.fel...@free.fr> in article
> <UiXf7.216$5m1.4...@nnrp1.proxad.net>:
> > "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> schrieb:
> > > A TROLL is defined as "a post designed to generate a large number of
> > > responses thus disrupting the proper business of the newsgroup".
> > <snip rather rude reply>
>
> > You mean like the rest of your post?
>
> Michael O'Neill tends to be a little, er, direct at times. I usually
> try to take his less polite offerings with quite a few grains of salt,
> which improves their flavor immensely. :)
tolerance, tolerance :)
> > I must say, I've just got into this NG and honestly, it seems like I
> > should look at alt.fan.tolkien instead. Maybe it's quieter?
>
> If you ignore the giant, sprawling "Creation in Tolkien and Lewis"
> thread (and its descendants), it's really not too bad (or so I like to
> think, anyway). I really do hope that the folks discussing, well,
> whatever it is they're discussing there now (capital punishment?) will
> come to their senses before too long and get back to discussing
> Tolkien: that thread seems to be sapping a good bit of the energy that
> the group would normally put toward actual on-topic discussions. The
> Barrow-blades thread has been interesting, though, and there have been
> a handful of other interesting on-topic discussions recently, too. :)
Is it customary to crosspost to both alt.fan.tolkien and
rec.arts.books.tolkien?
That seems to happen a lot.
Boris Badenov
|Is it customary to crosspost to both alt.fan.tolkien and
|rec.arts.books.tolkien?
|That seems to happen a lot.
Sometimes. I seldom start new threads, and seldom look at where my responses are going [so I have
occasionally found myself in some very strange places, but I digress]. I think most posters here
are like me, and that accounts for a lot of the crossposting.
My impression, and there is nothing official about any of this, is that RABT handles the Elven
linguistic issues, most of the discussion of the Silmarillion, scholarly questions like whether the
Balrogs had wings, whether barrow-blades kill Nazgul, and so on. AFT seems to focus on some of the
...shall we say..more superficial threads like who would win, Gandalf vs. the White Star? [Oops,
wrong newsgroup...]
Nick Tussing
=====
>whatever it is they're discussing there now (capital punishment?) will
>come to their senses before too long and get back to discussing
>Tolkien: that thread seems to be sapping a good bit of the energy that
>the group would normally put toward actual on-topic discussions.
Last I checked, that thread was catually getting quasi-on topic again (what
comes around goes around, sort of thing ...:-]), which some talk about C.S.
Lewis's works ... That was after some talk about the authorship of St.
Paul's
epistles ...
--
Count Menelvagor the Slayer of Killerbytes, Dragon Balrog Baritone, Lord
High Enervator of the Empire of Psot, Editor of Sauron's Diary, and All that
other Goond Struff, Member, TEUNC
Saurons' Diary: http://home.no.net/~teunc/sauron/sauron.html
"To the amusement parks
Mice are approaching. The ducks awaken ..."
(The E-text, V.2)
Mailandnews.com: Psotting at the Speed of Quicksand!!
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
Killfile RL.
Stan Brown
>Is it customary to crosspost to both alt.fan.tolkien and
>rec.arts.books.tolkien? That seems to happen a lot.
Yes, fairly customary. A minority of threads are on just one or the
other newsgroup, though. It's _not_ customary to crosspost to some
religious newsgroup, as Poor Ed did.
[Massive over-quoting snipped -- please quote just the specific part
you're responding to, if any]
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com/
"What in heaven's name brought you to Casablanca?"
"My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters."
"The waters? What waters? We're in the desert."
"I was misinformed."
Leo Fellmann
"Stan Brown" <bra...@mindspring.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:MPG.15eb7d292...@news.mindspring.com...
> Leo Fellmann <l.fel...@free.fr> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >Is it customary to crosspost to both alt.fan.tolkien and
> >rec.arts.books.tolkien? That seems to happen a lot.
>
> Yes, fairly customary. A minority of threads are on just one or the
> other newsgroup, though. It's _not_ customary to crosspost to some
> religious newsgroup, as Poor Ed did.
>
> [Massive over-quoting snipped -- please quote just the specific part
> you're responding to, if any]
Hey, hey - that wasn't very over-quoted. I've seen entire pages quoted to
add one word - AOL.
Although that will probably be replaced by WEBTV in the near future.
the softrat
<bb...@frostbite.falls.state.mn.us> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 21:54:12 GMT, "Leo Fellmann" <l.fel...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>|Is it customary to crosspost to both alt.fan.tolkien and
>|rec.arts.books.tolkien?
>|That seems to happen a lot.
>
>My impression, and there is nothing official about any of this, is that RABT handles the Elven
>linguistic issues, most of the discussion of the Silmarillion, scholarly questions like whether the
>Balrogs had wings, whether barrow-blades kill Nazgul, and so on. AFT seems to focus on some of the
>...shall we say..more superficial threads like who would win, Gandalf vs. the White Star? [Oops,
>wrong newsgroup...]
>
In general, RABT is more serious and scholarly and AFT is sillier and
more stupid.
You should *never* post in RABT!
(Of course *all* religion threads get stupid sooner or later.)
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Discordianism: Where reality is a figment of your imagination
David Sulger
>You're another clueless newbie! Two in
>one week! I love it!
>LOL!
Michael, you better hope the alt.flame regs don't see this post. They'd
get a lot of fun out of that statement. That is, assumming they're even
bothering anymore.
--Dave
ds50.geo @ yahoo.com
Assorted Tolkien stuff: http://www.geocities.com/ds50.geo/tolkien
David Sulger
>Is it customary to crosspost to both
>alt.fan.tolkien and rec.arts.books.tolkien?
>That seems to happen a lot.
More or less. Both groups have about the same group of people. Newbies
generally tend to tubmle across one group or the other. They either
tend to stick with one group or end up crossposting to both.
I think this is all discussed in Steuard's FAQ. There should be a link
to it somewhere, he posts it every four days. Occasionally, someone
tries to separate the two groups, but the attempt fails -- the regulars
in this group seem to resist any amount of control (including myself).
David Sulger
>My impression, and there is nothing
>official about any of this, is that RABT
>handles the Elven linguistic issues, most
>of the discussion of the Silmarillion,
>scholarly questions like whether the
>Balrogs had wings, whether
>barrow-blades kill Nazgul, and so on.
>AFT seems to focus on some of the
>...shall we say..more superficial threads
>like who would win, Gandalf vs. the
>White Star?
Actually, that is more or less official. In practice however, no one
cares. :)
Also, TEUNC occasionally seems to like to use aft as its personal
playground.
Öjevind Lång
>Quoth "Leo Fellmann" <l.fel...@free.fr> in article:
[snip]
>> I must say, I've just got into this NG and honestly, it seems like I
>> should look at alt.fan.tolkien instead. Maybe it's quieter?
>
>If you ignore the giant, sprawling "Creation in Tolkien and Lewis"
>thread (and its descendants), it's really not too bad (or so I like to
>think, anyway). I really do hope that the folks discussing, well,
>whatever it is they're discussing there now (capital punishment?) will
>come to their senses before too long and get back to discussing
>Tolkien: that thread seems to be sapping a good bit of the energy that
>the group would normally put toward actual on-topic discussions. The
>Barrow-blades thread has been interesting, though, and there have been
>a handful of other interesting on-topic discussions recently, too. :)
Hey, don't trask the Giant Thread! Every time you do that it swells to twice
its previous size; you work like an aphrodisiac on it.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
>Boris Badenov wrote:
>>My impression, and there is nothing
>official about any of this, is that RABT
>handles the Elven linguistic issues, most
>of the discussion of the Silmarillion,
>scholarly questions like whether the
>Balrogs had wings, whether
>barrow-blades kill Nazgul, and so on.
>AFT seems to focus on some of the
>...shall we say..more superficial threads
>like who would win, Gandalf vs. the
>White Star?
>Actually, that is more or less official. In practice however, no one
cares. :)
Or at least relatively few.
>Also, TEUNC occasionally seems to like to use aft as its personal
playground.
AFT is our ancestral homeland. We like to pay it our respects.
Öjevind
Michael O'Neill
>
> Michael O'Neill wrote:
>
> >You're another clueless newbie! Two in
> >one week! I love it!
>
> >LOL!
>
> Michael, you better hope the alt.flame regs don't see this post. They'd
> get a lot of fun out of that statement. That is, assumming they're even
> bothering anymore.
<bows in acknowledgement and applauds Dave's perceptive abilities>
Thank you Dave.
Its nice to see a *real* TROLL being recognised as to its final intended
victims.
And no, I don't think they're lurking.
I think its the film season somewhere so possibly their RL personas are
taking over, although the "annexation" of soc.culture.scottish was an
interesting act, possibly [or so I thought] a prelude to the usual
pre-Christmas invasion here [why anyone would want to invade a
*Scottish* newsgroup...].
<shakes head>
Later.
M.
Michael O'Neill
<snip>
> Yes, fairly customary. A minority of threads are on just one or the
> other newsgroup, though. It's _not_ customary to crosspost to some
> religious newsgroup, as Poor Ed did.
*mheh*
"Poor Ed" apparently crossposted *from* that religious group, where he
appears to be a regular, although I'm not sure how far back his
"tenancy" goes.
FWIW
M.
Michael O'Neill
<snip>
> >Also, TEUNC occasionally seems to like to use aft as its personal
> playground.
>
> AFT is our ancestral homeland. We like to pay it our respects.
And disrespects.
M.
Alatar
"David Sulger" wrote:
> I think this is all discussed in Steuard's FAQ. There should be a link
> to it somewhere, he posts it every four days.
Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ
http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/TolkNgFaq.html
--
Alatar
Jeff George
>
>
> Actually, all I wanted was some discussion on human value and
> perfection, and I had a 'bright idea' that my favorite book might be a
> good reference point. I bet Bilbo had no idea how valuable it was. May
> I now segue into speculating whether humanity has any idea how
> valuable Jesus is, or would that be trolling?
>
Any mention of Jesus would be trolling.
--
=====================================================================
Mark my words, believe my soul lives on.
Don't worry now that I have gone, I've gone beyond to seek the truth.
When you know that your time is close at hand
Maybe then you'll begin to understand
Life down there is just a strange illusion.
- Steve Harris
=====================================================================
Jeff George
Jeff George
>
>
> As for placing a vlue on Jesus, what a question to raise!!!
>
Frank Herbert could put a value on this Jesus guy, by the amount of
water you could squeeze out of him.
Jeff George
>
>
> (Of course *all* religion threads get stupid sooner or later.)
>
Typically sooner more than later.
Jeff George
>
> So I can't mention Jesus on a newsgroup devoted to a book by a devoted
> Catholic, eh?
>
That is correct.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:8Gfg7.614$TT6.1...@nnrp4.proxad.net...
> Is it customary to crosspost to both alt.fan.tolkien and
> rec.arts.books.tolkien?
> That seems to happen a lot.
If you want to post something to both groups it is better to
cross-post than to post it independently to each. This is because
only one copy of the message is actually sent if it is
crossposted. Also, many newsreaders recognize that the message
has already been read in another newsgroup and do not display it
again when you get to the next group.
That said, there is no reason that something MUST be posted to
both groups unless you want to get the widest distribution /
comments possible.
Michael O'Neill
>
> Michael O'Neill wrote:
> >
> >
> > As for placing a vlue on Jesus, what a question to raise!!!
> >
>
> Frank Herbert could put a value on this Jesus guy, by the amount of
> water you could squeeze out of him.
Well caught that man!
M.
Raven
news:yX8g7.316047$EF2.39...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> > ... Sheesh.
> You watch your language, mister!
Easee, woman! There was six letters in thaht woerd, not for!
Voron.
Laurie Forbes
"Raven" <jonlenn...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:KcDg7.264$Ca7....@news.get2net.dk...
Yay! He's bax! (LOL at "easee" and the reest!)
Ed Poor
>Either Ed Poor is, as he says,
>a believer [however misguided and guileless] looking to broaden his
>circle of acquaintances or he is a hypocrite, a non-believer and a
>TROLL.
'Off early? found some friends at last?' Strider nodded, but did not
answer.
Ed Poor
rand mair fheal
"Ed Poor" <foo@bar> wrote:
>Michael O'Neill wrote in message <3B81783D...@indigo.ie>...
mikey prides himself on being a star of alt.flame
everybody knows this so to get any response he generally resorts to trolls
Michael O'Neill
You're not going already Ed?
Bring a copy of the Washington Post with you to pass the time in the
cold and lonely bus station.
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> In article <KAFg7.55463$gj1.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Ed Poor" <foo@bar> wrote:
>
> >Michael O'Neill wrote in message <3B81783D...@indigo.ie>...
>
> mikey prides himself on being a star of alt.flame
As a tewwibly self effacing type I seldom take pride in my associations
with newsgroups. are you jealous of that, my liddle chickadee? Hmmmm? Do
you need an introduction to the big people?
> everybody knows this so to get any response he generally resorts to trolls
*mueheh*
Dream on kiddo.
M.
Ed Poor
Michael O'Neill wrote in message <3B810CE0...@indigo.ie>...
>Ed Poor wrote:
>>
>
>Tut, tut. You're not really glad at all Ed, are you? A fundie like
you
>getting slagged off in public?
>
>LOL!
Actually, I like the attention. :--)
>> Want to see me jump on a table and sing? Hm,
>> it's hard to balance up here with one hand in my pocket; let's hope
I
>> don't fall off and break up our host's crockery.
>
>No Ed. The mere fact that you follow a fundamentalist religion is
enough
>to amuse me.
>
>*mheh*
My religion is the Unification Church, and it's not fundamentalists.
Fundamentalists despise us, possible because we're so opposed to
"blind faith."
>> I'm a firm believer in my religion, if that's what you mean: dyed
in
>> the woll, you might say. I'm sorry if I'm not as tolerant as you
are.
>> Perhaps I can learn from you. BTW, how am I doing on snipping?
>
>You are interspersing *your* comments, not snipping *mine* Ed.
What else would you prefer?
>Distractive comments don't work on me as easily as they do on the
>clueless newbies you TROLL into your church in real life, I'm afraid.
I haven't convinced anyone online to join my church -- except you
(possibly). <sarcasm>You know, the more you talk with a moonie the
greater your risk of becoming brainwashed, LOL.</sarcasm>
>> Actually, all I wanted was some discussion on human value and
>> perfection, and I had a 'bright idea' that my favorite book might
be a
>> good reference point. I bet Bilbo had no idea how valuable it was.
May
>> I now segue into speculating whether humanity has any idea how
>> valuable Jesus is, or would that be trolling?
>
>You can segue into whatever you want Ed. I don't own Usenet. FWIW
>Tolkien is on record as hating allegory in all its forms and the mere
>mention of Christ raises the hackles of like minded Tolkienites.
Well, then Tolkien shouldn't have made Gandalf so unselfishly
Christ-like.
>As for placing a vlue on Jesus, what a question to raise!!!
If you don't like it, don't discuss it. Everyone else but you is
ignoring it; only you are keeping this thread alive. Whatever you pay
attention to, grows.
>Perhaps Rev. Moon will issue a unitarian fatwa against me for taking
the
>piss out of you over it. Or on you for daring to be so blasphemous to
>place a value on Christ. I ask you!
I think you mean Unificationist fatwa, and if that's anything like a
jihad, don't hold your breath. He saves his big guns for Communist
leaders -- but that's another thread, isn't it?
>Placing a value on something whose value cannot be imagined. What a
>terrible travesty of religious inquiry that would be.
>
>I've heard of the Church of Christ Scientist, but not Christ
Monetarist!
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I meant that the value of Jesus
exceeds the value of the entire cosmos. By 'exceeds' I mean 'is beyond
compare'.
>> If you feel this is a disruption, why don't you e-mail me privately
or
>> snip aft and rabt and just tell me off once and for all? The way
it's
>> going, it feels like going through a gauntlet.
>
>Does it Ed? Do you perhaps feel you stepped outside your yardsticks
in
>coming to aft? Don't you relise that people approach whatever they
>conceive the fountainhead of creation/God/whatever to be in many
>different ways? Some do it by reading Tolkien. Some do it by
practising
>Catholicism. Or Protestantism. Or Methodism. Or the Muslim faith. Or
the
>Jewish religion.
I have gotten a bit off the beaten path, but I think I can handle the
reception I've gotten. Your courtesy and tolerance has warmed my
heart. I'd love to discuss how your religious ideas relate to LOTR.
>Or perhaps some of them don't believe the fountainhead of
>creation/GOd/whatever needs approaching at all and are practising
[sic]
>atheists trying to live good lives and respecting their fellow man.
>
>Hell! Some of them could be Bishops or Nuns into ensuring their souls
>salvation by inflicting pain on themselves or that ultimate sexual
>perversion, chastity!
>
>ROTFLMAO!
Sure. Why not? Fine with me.
>> >Ed Poor? Is that your given name, or did it adopt you?
>> >
>> >M.
>>
>> Glad I could amuse you.
>>
>> E.
>
>We haven't even begun Ed. I'm merely trying to point you towards a
few
>definitions of terms - so you'll understand, later on. Then again,
you
>might just re-read the header, which really says it all.
>
>M.
My name found me, like the Ring found Bilbo. It was his time. Now is
my time.
Ed Poor
P.S. My retort to your header, is in my header
Ed Poor
not
>> answer.
>
>You're not going already Ed?
>
>Bring a copy of the Washington Post with you to pass the time in the
>cold and lonely bus station.
>
>M.
I prefer the Washington Times, as you surely would realize if you
visited my web site.
Ed Poor
www.edpoor.com
P.S. Click on News.
Ermanna
Raven made dwagin-sized wripples in the Force:
Though Laurie uses a four-lettered word.
> Voron.
Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight, Lady of Rivendell
Elbereth Gilthoniel!
Raven
news:3B84F48A...@erols.com...
> > > > ... Sheesh.
> > > You watch your language, mister!
> > Easee, woman! There was six letters in thaht woerd, not for!
> Though Laurie uses a four-lettered word.
They aare nott easy tooo avod.
Ravn.
Skylar Thompson
> the
> piss out of you over it. Or on you for daring to be so blasphemous to
> place a value on Christ. I ask you!
Mr Poor is a Unificationist, not a Unitarian. Unitarians are (well, tend
to be) liberal.
--
-- Skylar Thompson (sky...@attglobal.net)
P(4.2.2) + "Skylar DXXXXIX" DMPo L:36 DL:2500' A++ R+++ Sp w:Stormbringer
A(JLE)*/P*/Z/J64/Ad L/O H+ D+ c f-/f PV+ s TT- d++/d+ P++ M/M+
C- S++ I+/I++ So B+ ac GHB++ SQ++ RQ+ V+ F:JLE F: Possessors strong again
Michael O'Neill
>
> Michael O'Neill wrote in message <3B810CE0...@indigo.ie>...
> > Perhaps Rev. Moon will issue a unitarian fatwa against me for taking
> > the
> > piss out of you over it. Or on you for daring to be so blasphemous to
> > place a value on Christ. I ask you!
>
> Mr Poor is a Unificationist, not a Unitarian. Unitarians are (well, tend
> to be) liberal.
My mistake which I think Mr Poor, whose name found him, has pointed out
to me in another post.
M.
"All these people look alike to me"
Ed Poor
tend
>> to be) liberal.
>
>My mistake which I think Mr Poor, whose name found him, has pointed
out
>to me in another post.
>
>M.
>
>"All these people look alike to me"
LOL, that's okay. I actually *was* a Unitarian before joining the
Unification Church. Our motto was, "We believe in at most one God."
Ed Poor
Michael O'Neill
>
> Michael O'Neill wrote in message <3B810CE0...@indigo.ie>...
> >Ed Poor wrote:
> >>
> >
> >Tut, tut. You're not really glad at all Ed, are you? A fundie like
> you
> >getting slagged off in public?
> >
> >LOL!
>
> Actually, I like the attention. :--)
I'm delighted for you. You've definitely come to the right place.
> >> Want to see me jump on a table and sing? Hm,
> >> it's hard to balance up here with one hand in my pocket; let's hope
> I
> >> don't fall off and break up our host's crockery.
> >
> >No Ed. The mere fact that you follow a fundamentalist religion is
> enough
> >to amuse me.
> >
> >*mheh*
>
> My religion is the Unification Church, and it's not fundamentalists.
> Fundamentalists despise us, possible because we're so opposed to
> "blind faith."
Well, yes and no, Ed. Some would say Irish Catholics are
fundamentalists, but most practice a "relaxed" form of RC. They tend to
despise Moonies because of their alleged methods of indoctrination,
which have been reported in the press as "love-bombing" of insecure
types and as being close to brainwashing.
In addition Irish people tend to dislike Moonies because the people so
inducted tend to give all their income to what RC believers see as a
mere cult [instead of thei needy relatives or community members], never
noticing their own history of giving vast tracts of land and monies to
the RC church for indulgences.
Would you care to comment?
> >> I'm a firm believer in my religion, if that's what you mean: dyed
> in
> >> the woll, you might say. I'm sorry if I'm not as tolerant as you
> are.
> >> Perhaps I can learn from you. BTW, how am I doing on snipping?
> >
> >You are interspersing *your* comments, not snipping *mine* Ed.
>
> What else would you prefer?
Its a matter of definition not a preference.
"Snipping" means removing text irrelevant to the current comment or
which unnecessary for following the thread in the current post.
"Interspersing comment" means answering points as you go by inserting
them as new paragraphs into the previous posters text instead of putting
all the follow on comments at the bottom of the preceeding posts text.
I was defining what you were doing/not doing. Either is acceptable on
Usenet.
> >Distractive comments don't work on me as easily as they do on the
> >clueless newbies you TROLL into your church in real life, I'm afraid.
>
> I haven't convinced anyone online to join my church -- except you
> (possibly).
<falls off chair>
Eh nope.
> <sarcasm>You know, the more you talk with a moonie the
> greater your risk of becoming brainwashed, LOL.</sarcasm>
<gets back on chair>
I know. But then the poor old Hare Krishnas in O'Connell Street in
Dublin tried it...
*mheh*
Poor guys. Sending innocents into O'Connell Street to spray half
understood half-truths at a Catholic populace. Ask them one simple
question, the old, basic question touched on by Tolkien about Good and
Evil and they wander off muttering.
Ah, the old ones are the best. "How can God be All if God is only Good?"
I can still see him now, looking blankly at me as I tell him I won't be
buying his book unless it answers that question fully.
LOL!
> >> Actually, all I wanted was some discussion on human value and
> >> perfection, and I had a 'bright idea' that my favorite book might
> be a
> >> good reference point. I bet Bilbo had no idea how valuable it was.
> May
> >> I now segue into speculating whether humanity has any idea how
> >> valuable Jesus is, or would that be trolling?
> >
> >You can segue into whatever you want Ed. I don't own Usenet. FWIW
> >Tolkien is on record as hating allegory in all its forms and the mere
> >mention of Christ raises the hackles of like minded Tolkienites.
>
> Well, then Tolkien shouldn't have made Gandalf so unselfishly
> Christ-like.
Point of order. IIRC Christ only used physical violence againt teh
moneylenders in the Temple and never spoke directly against Caeser or
incitfully against the Priests of the Temple, preferring to shwo by
example and inference. Gandalf's whole purpose was to strive to incite
all the Free People to rise up against their Opressors and to
co-ordinate resistance. He also acted directly in battle against their
agents. He is therefore a direct contradiction to someone being
Christ-like. Just because Gandalf died and was sent back doesn't make
him Christ like.
You need to read and understand [it can take a couple of reads] the
History of Middle Earth series to gain an understanding of Tolkiens
concept Man's Fall as it relates to his cosmogeny and the purpose of
human ressurection, the concept that it was not intended to be a
singular event and the cleansing effect it was intended to have on Arda
Marred. Until then, please leave Christ like references to Gandalf where
they belong.
> >As for placing a vlue on Jesus, what a question to raise!!!
>
> If you don't like it, don't discuss it. Everyone else but you is
> ignoring it; only you are keeping this thread alive. Whatever you pay
> attention to, grows.
Sore point, ehhh Ed? You know you overstepped the mark there. Now if you
were really the sole object of my attentions at this time, I would be in
your group seeding it with numerous threads about that issue under the
guise of a prospective convert under another name. Turning up the heat
so to speak. But I'm not. Luckily for you I'm too busy in RL.
> >Perhaps Rev. Moon will issue a unitarian fatwa against me for taking
> the
> >piss out of you over it. Or on you for daring to be so blasphemous to
> >place a value on Christ. I ask you!
>
> I think you mean Unificationist fatwa, and if that's anything like a
> jihad, don't hold your breath. He saves his big guns for Communist
> leaders -- but that's another thread, isn't it?
It is indeed. But public utterances out of step with the "party line"
don't go down too wel in *any* orgainsed religion and you would probably
do well to remember that next time. Being disowned by your own religion
can be traumatic, I'm told.
> >Placing a value on something whose value cannot be imagined. What a
> >terrible travesty of religious inquiry that would be.
> >
> >I've heard of the Church of Christ Scientist, but not Christ
> Monetarist!
>
> Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I meant that the value of Jesus
> exceeds the value of the entire cosmos. By 'exceeds' I mean 'is beyond
> compare'.
Nope, sorry. Backpedal as furiously as you like Ed, but you were caught
with your trousers down trying to pick a price point in order to market
the Christ to potential "monetarist" converts and let's face it, it
wasn't a pretty sight.
Do it again and I'll have to ask the Reverend Moon to spank you.
> >> If you feel this is a disruption, why don't you e-mail me privately
> or
> >> snip aft and rabt and just tell me off once and for all? The way
> it's
> >> going, it feels like going through a gauntlet.
> >
> >Does it Ed? Do you perhaps feel you stepped outside your yardsticks
> in
> >coming to aft? Don't you relise that people approach whatever they
> >conceive the fountainhead of creation/God/whatever to be in many
> >different ways? Some do it by reading Tolkien. Some do it by
> practising
> >Catholicism. Or Protestantism. Or Methodism. Or the Muslim faith. Or
> the
> >Jewish religion.
>
> I have gotten a bit off the beaten path, but I think I can handle the
> reception I've gotten. Your courtesy and tolerance has warmed my
> heart. I'd love to discuss how your religious ideas relate to LOTR.
If the reality I live in is supported by a divine hand and every fantasy
is but a reflection, however distorted, of that reality, then religion
has some relevance to fantasy. Yet most religions lack proof of that
whic his believed in.
However, the religion of the LotR wasn't a matter of "belief" for many
people living in ME at the time. The Noldor had direct experience of the
Gods and brought it back to ME with them. For Elves, memories were as
"real" as current happenings and never faded. Their descendants, the
half elven were also living proof of certain these matters [Beren and
Lúthien] until Elros death, and afterward Elrond stil lived under the
sun in Middle Earth.
But the Númenóreans had had direct experience of Erú himself. The Valar
had been threatened by Ar Pharazon in their deathless land which was
stil lpart of ME. Erú destroyed Numenor when teh Valar laid down their
guardianship of the world and asked for Erú's help. Without that event,
Elendil and his sons wouldn not have come back to Middle earth to found
GOndor and Arnor. Yet Gondor was still a reality at the tiem of teh
LotR. Dol Amroth's princes still had marks of having Elvish blood.
Thus the belief element was significantly diminished and proof still
existed. Wizards walked the earth. Dragons still flew and crawled.
Nazgul existed. Religion only needs to exist where no proof can be
shown. Such was not the case in ME at the time of the LotR. Several
hundred years later, who knows. The Cult of Aragorn the Redeemer might
have been going strong.
:-)
> >Or perhaps some of them don't believe the fountainhead of
> >creation/GOd/whatever needs approaching at all and are practising
> [sic]
> >atheists trying to live good lives and respecting their fellow man.
> >
> >Hell! Some of them could be Bishops or Nuns into ensuring their souls
> >salvation by inflicting pain on themselves or that ultimate sexual
> >perversion, chastity!
> >
> >ROTFLMAO!
>
> Sure. Why not? Fine with me.
>
> >> >Ed Poor? Is that your given name, or did it adopt you?
> >> >
> >> >M.
> >>
> >> Glad I could amuse you.
> >>
> >> E.
> >
> >We haven't even begun Ed. I'm merely trying to point you towards a
> few
> >definitions of terms - so you'll understand, later on. Then again,
> you
> >might just re-read the header, which really says it all.
> >
> >M.
>
> My name found me, like the Ring found Bilbo. It was his time. Now is
> my time.
Well, actually it was Sauron's time, the Ring's time, not really Bilbo's
time at all. In fact Bilbo was the last person the Ring "wanted" to
find.You see, he was indomitable by evil. No use to the Ring at all.
> Ed Poor
>
> P.S. My retort to your header, is in my header
You seem to have missed my point. Belief without doubt, limits the way
in which a person relates to the universe. We all cocoon ourselves, but
strong religios belief claims to understand and filter for you the very
unrepinnings of existence, the reason "why" things happen, the Big
Question.
Bad idea, limiting human inquiry and creativity.
M.
Michael O'Neill
Ah, an exclusive club, ehhh?
*mheh*
M.
Michael O'Neill
Mmmmm.
Someone who couldn't tell the difference told me the dear Reverend owned
the Post. I see it should have been the Times.
And why are you quoting what Bush spouted about legalising drugs? Is it
that you share his view?
M.
Skylar Thompson
Well, like I said, there are liberal and conservative Unitarians. I go to
a Unitarian-Universalist fellowship, and there are all kinds of religions
there (Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, Hindus, even a visting Mormon a
few years ago), and non-religions (atheism and agnosticism).
--
-- Skylar Thompson (sky...@attglobal.net)
P(4.2.2) + "Skylar DXLIX" DMPo L:36 DL:2500' A++ R+++ Sp w:Stormbringer
Ed Poor
the
>> >cold and lonely bus station.
>> >
>> >M.
>>
>> I prefer the Washington Times, as you surely would realize if you
>> visited my web site.
>>
>> Ed Poor
>> www.edpoor.com
>>
>> P.S. Click on News.
>
>Mmmmm.
>
>Someone who couldn't tell the difference told me the dear Reverend
owned
>the Post. I see it should have been the Times.
>
>And why are you quoting what Bush spouted about legalising drugs? Is
it
>that you share his view?
>
>M.
It's a bit off-topic, you troll, but yes, I share his views on drugs,
at least the addictive and debilitating ones. Pipe tobacco is okay,
though, since the hobbits and Gandalf used it.
Ed Poor
Ed Poor
>> >
>> >"All these people look alike to me"
>>
>> LOL, that's okay. I actually *was* a Unitarian before joining the
>> Unification Church. Our motto was, "We believe in at most one God."
>
>Ah, an exclusive club, ehhh?
>
>*mheh*
>
>M.
The Unitarians I knew weren't very exclusive. They even let in
homosexuals.
Ed Poor
Ed Poor
No, I better not. The pastor of my local Unification Church comes from
a strong Catholic background, is Irish, and was a chippie. I dasn't
rile him.
Ed Poor
John Savard
in part:
>The Unitarians I knew weren't very exclusive. They even let in
>homosexuals.
Well, _of course_ they would have done *that*. That doesn't indicate a
lack of exclusivity on their part, since supporting things like the
equality of homosexuals fits right in with their core beliefs.
As I find arranged marriages offensive to my core beliefs, I have to
admit I find your new choice of belief unusual.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://plaza.powersurfr.com/jsavard/other/abaint.htm
Russ
>>fundamentalists, but most practice a "relaxed" form of RC.
Which Irish would these be?
? They tend
>to
>>despise Moonies because of their alleged methods of indoctrination,
>>which have been reported in the press as "love-bombing" of insecure
>>types and as being close to brainwashing.
>>
>>In addition Irish people tend to dislike Moonies because the people
>so
>>inducted tend to give all their income to what RC believers see as a
>>mere cult [instead of thei needy relatives or community members],
>never
>>noticing their own history of giving vast tracts of land and monies
>to
>>the RC church for indulgences.
Hmmm. The only vast tracts of land going to anyone in Ireland were Prtestants
taking it from the Catholics.
Russ
Conrad Dunkerson
news:RBXh7.61354$gj1.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> ...I share his views on drugs, at least the addictive and
> debilitating ones. Pipe tobacco is okay, though, since the
> hobbits and Gandalf used it.
Uhm... tobacco IS addictive and debilitating.
Lady Cin
Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Is5i7.27029$Ki1.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
a few others and the drug problem would change...imo.
Lady Cin
http://lady_cin.tripod.com/
http://www.alabamatechnologies.com
Steuard Jensen
<Yoqh7.58628$gj1.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
> Unification Church. Our motto was, "We believe in at most one God."
Just to keep you up to date, I believe that the Unitarian Universalist
Association voted just a few years ago to accept followers of a range
of polytheistic belief systems as well. I guess our new motto is "We
believe in at most one God, except for those of us who don't." :)
Steuard Jensen
Ed Poor
John Savard wrote
>Well, _of course_ they would have done *that*. That doesn't indicate
a
>lack of exclusivity on their part, since supporting things like the
>equality of homosexuals fits right in with their core beliefs.
>
>As I find arranged marriages offensive to my core beliefs, I have to
>admit I find your new choice of belief unusual.
>
>John Savard
>http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
>http://plaza.powersurfr.com/jsavard/other/abaint.htm
What's offensive about arranged marriages? If a man and a woman have
both volunteered to be matched up, and they each can veto the match,
how is there a problem?
Ed Poor
Michael O'Neill
<<<<<<<<WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSHHHHHH!!!!>>>>>>>
"Exclusive" in the sense of *one* God.
:-)
M.
Michael O'Neill
I'm not going to argue John's point of view, but I certainly thought on
first reading that the *other* kind of arranged marraige was meant, i.e.
where the parents do the chosing and you jolly well better like it.
Of course, apart from the "young people today" needing their *freedom*,
there *was* sometimes a point to arranged marraiges of the old school
variety. Sometimes the parents really *did* have a clue who their son or
daughter would be best suited to.
Unfortunately this wasn't necessarily the person they loved and wanted
to spend their life with.
M.
Michael O'Neill
A mean man with a four by four in his hand ehhh? Well, never mind.
M.
Ed Poor
the
>> >> Unification Church. Our motto was, "We believe in at most one
God."
>> >
>> >Ah, an exclusive club, ehhh?
>> >
>> >*mheh*
>> >
>> >M.
>>
>> The Unitarians I knew weren't very exclusive. They even let in
>> homosexuals.
>
><<<<<<<<WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSHHHHHH!!!!>>>>>>>
>
>"Exclusive" in the sense of *one* God.
>
>:-)
>
>M.
Oh, thanks, gotcha. Glad there's a scholar around when you need one.
:--)
Ed Poor
Ed Poor
Universalist
>Association voted just a few years ago to accept followers of a range
>of polytheistic belief systems as well. I guess our new motto is "We
>believe in at most one God, except for those of us who don't." :)
>
> Steuard Jensen
I enjoyed being a UU and almost became an LRY. Then one day, I was
sitting on the front steps of the First Parish Unitarian Church in
Cambridge, Massachusetts, when up came a tall wizard in a . . .
Okay, it wasn't quite like that :--)
Ed Poor
Michael O'Neill
>
> >>Well, yes and no, Ed. Some would say Irish Catholics are
> >>fundamentalists, but most practice a "relaxed" form of RC.
>
> Which Irish would these be?
Me. And a lot of others, unless the vast legions of recently unemployed
techies have rediscovered the joys of Orthodox Catholicism.
> ? They tend
> >to
> >>despise Moonies because of their alleged methods of indoctrination,
> >>which have been reported in the press as "love-bombing" of insecure
> >>types and as being close to brainwashing.
> >>
> >>In addition Irish people tend to dislike Moonies because the people
> >so
> >>inducted tend to give all their income to what RC believers see as a
> >>mere cult [instead of thei needy relatives or community members],
> >never
> >>noticing their own history of giving vast tracts of land and monies
> >to
> >>the RC church for indulgences.
> Hmmm. The only vast tracts of land going to anyone in Ireland were
> Prtestants taking it from the Catholics.
Old news, Russ. Very old news. I was referring to those sinners amongst
the preceeding generations who willed vast tracts of land to the
religious communities in Ireland, often teaching establishments, run by
catholic brothers and nuns.
How else do you think the Catholic Church became one of the largest
landowners in the Republic?
Michael O'Neill
He was a short wizard...?
M.
Michael O'Neill
Why is your nose longer than mine in your ascii face Ed?
Is this a Pinnochio kind of thing?
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:Is5i7.27029$Ki1.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "Ed Poor" <ed....@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:RBXh7.61354$gj1.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > > ...I share his views on drugs, at least the addictive and
> > > debilitating ones. Pipe tobacco is okay, though, since the
> > > hobbits and Gandalf used it.
> >
> > Uhm... tobacco IS addictive and debilitating.
> >
> >
> So is alcohol...but the point is...alcohol and tobacco are legal....legalize
> a few others and the drug problem would change...imo.
This is very true. It wouldn't necessarily improve matters much, but at
least rebellious 16-year-olds won't be made into criminals for smoking
dried plant leaves.
Probably for doign something else...
M.
Leo Fellmann
"Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3B896D8F...@indigo.ie...
What, tobacco's illegal for 16 year olds where you live? :)
grimgard
Well, I don't know that tobacco itself is addictive in a clinical
sense. It certainly seems that the nicotine which tobacco contains can
be addictive, but I don't know that the amount of nicotine which
naturally occurs in tobacco leaves is clinically addictive. Certainly
the cigarette manufacturers were worried that it wasn't addictive
enough, since they felt the need to juice it up rather signifigantly.
grimgard
grimgard
Leo Fellmann wrote:
>
>
> > This is very true. It wouldn't necessarily improve matters much, but at
> > least rebellious 16-year-olds won't be made into criminals for smoking
> > dried plant leaves.
>
> What, tobacco's illegal for 16 year olds where you live? :)
Well it certainly is where I live.
grimgard
Leo Fellmann
"grimgard" <grim...@prodigy.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3B8A865C...@prodigy.net...
Ah. Ok. I see. Barbarians, the lot of you.
( whoever "you" is. )
John C
> What, tobacco's illegal for 16 year olds where you live? :)
Odd thing is...in NY, you can't buy tobacco until you're 18, but you can
possess it at age 16.
-John C.
Bruce N. Hietbrink
>
> I'm not going to argue John's point of view, but I certainly thought on
> first reading that the *other* kind of arranged marraige was meant, i.e.
> where the parents do the chosing and you jolly well better like it.
>
>
> Of course, apart from the "young people today" needing their *freedom*,
> there *was* sometimes a point to arranged marraiges of the old school
> variety. Sometimes the parents really *did* have a clue who their son or
> daughter would be best suited to.
I had a colleague from India who had a semi-arranged marriage. He told me
that he was going back home for a month to get married and I asked him
what she was like and he said he didn't know, he hadn't met her yet. His
family had found three or four women and he was going to go and meet them
and marry one of them. We actually had a long talk about this and he
made the point that in his culture the extended family is really important
(unlike our American lifestyle where extended families in one household
is almost unheard of, where couples come together and go off and make their
own homes), and so it was extremely important that the families matched.
Now this wasn't the extreme sort of match-up where they are set up from
before birth or don't see eachother until their wedding day or anything. Both
he and the prospective bride could veto it. He and his new wife did seem very
happy with how it turned out.
There's this great scene in _Fiddler on the Roof_. Tevye and Golde were set
up by a matchmaker, but their daughters have gone against tradition and
married based on love. Tevye comes to his wife and asks if she loves hims
and there's this song they sing. Anyway, the best part is this:
G: Do I love him?
For twenty five years I've cooked for him
cleaned for him, starved with him.
Twenty five years my bed is his.
If that's not love what is?
T: Then you love me?
G: I suppose I do.
T: And I suppose I love you too.
(I found the lyrics at
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/3982/lyrics/fiddler2.html)
Anyway, I found this very touching. Love for them wasn't some sort of
starry-eyed idealistic view, instead it was a life of shared hardships and joys.
Perhaps we in the western world make far too much of the romantic
side of love. I'm not saying I don't; I'm as much a product of this
culture as anyone. While I can't say I would want another type of
arrangement (pun intended) for myself, I can't really fault other cultures
with different ways on this, as long as there is some element of veto power
on the side of both the bride and groom. There are, of course, awful situations
where a young girl is given to some old man as basically a kind of sexual slave.
That's not the sort of thing I'm talking about at all. Hopefully that
goes without
saying.
Bruce
Uh, hmm, how do I tie this in to Tolkien? Were there arranged marriages
in Tolkien?
There were definitely times when fathers put strict limits on their
daughters getting
married--e.g. Thingol and Elrond.
Lady Cin
Leo Fellmann <l.fel...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:Ftei7.1243$bH6.1...@nnrp4.proxad.net...
> What, tobacco's illegal for 16 year olds where you live? :)
>
>
21...some individual states call it different, but I can't remember which at
the moment...heck, there's a law in Alaska that says pot is legal for
individual consumption...lol...my ex keeps talking about moving.
John Savard
in part:
>What's offensive about arranged marriages? If a man and a woman have
>both volunteered to be matched up, and they each can veto the match,
>how is there a problem?
Well, it isn't offensive in _one_ way, in the sense that we're no
longer talking about something equivalent to rape, but it still shows
a lack of respect for both the seriousness of the institution and the
uniqueness of the human individual.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://plaza.powersurfr.com/jsavard/other/slrint.htm
Bruce N. Hietbrink
jsa...@ecn.ab.SBLOK.ca.nowhere (John Savard) wrote:
>
> Well, it isn't offensive in _one_ way, in the sense that we're no
> longer talking about something equivalent to rape, but it still shows
> a lack of respect for both the seriousness of the institution and the
> uniqueness of the human individual.
But someone from a culture that had arranged marriages could equally
well point to the current practice in the US (and also Western Europe
maybe?) as having a lack of respect for the seriousness of the institution.
We get married based on something as ephemeral as feelings and a
whole bunch of us get divorced again just as quickly for the same
reason. A culture where marriage is seen as the coming together of
two families to create a combined entity probably leads to more lasting
commitments.
I'd assume that they would point out that our focus on the "uniqueness
of the human individual" ignores the individual's foundation in the family
and community.
Caveats: I in no way want to put myself forward as the defender of
arranged marriages. I shudder to think of who my sisters might have
set me up with. I also am not trying to promote a complete cultural
relativism.
Bruce
Sylver
> > a few others and the drug problem would change...imo.
>
> This is very true. It wouldn't necessarily improve matters much, but at
> least rebellious 16-year-olds won't be made into criminals for smoking
> dried plant leaves.
>
> Probably for doign something else...
>
> M.
I've had the discussion on the legalization of marijuana with people many times.
The majority of the people I've discussed it with agree that (myself included),
there should be a minimum age thing attached to it. 19 would be good, considering
here in Canada, well in BC, anyway, the legal age for alcohol is that. Would work
perfectly. It is addictive and can make a person's brain not work up to par
(lessens attentions span, especially in teenagers), and shouldn't be offered to
kids who are still completing at least their high school education.
As far as I'm concerned, if a person wants to do drugs, no matter what it is,
(perhaps with the exceptions of Heroin and Meth which are only good for population
control, if a person believes in that sort of thing), they should be able to do
them. As long as they're not committing crimes to buy the substance, making their
kids (if they have any) starve to do the drug, etcetera. As long as there is no
harm being caused to other people.
Geannie (Sylver)
--
Call your damnable hunt,
And we shall see,
Who I drag,
Screaming to hell with me!
~Gunter Diorn
Craig Maxim
news:bnh-270801...@houkdhcp247.chem.ucla.edu...
> But someone from a culture that had arranged marriages could equally
> well point to the current practice in the US (and also Western Europe
> maybe?) as having a lack of respect for the seriousness of the
institution.
You can't use irresponsibility in one instance, to justify irresponsibility
in another instance.
And no rational and mature American would claim that "feelings" alone is a
basis for a successful marriage.
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
The Moonies Exposed - www.xmoonies.com
Craig Maxim - craig...@email.com
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
Boris Badenov
|Well, I don't know that tobacco itself is addictive in a clinical
|sense. It certainly seems that the nicotine which tobacco contains can
|be addictive, but I don't know that the amount of nicotine which
|naturally occurs in tobacco leaves is clinically addictive. Certainly
|the cigarette manufacturers were worried that it wasn't addictive
|enough, since they felt the need to juice it up rather signifigantly.
Nicotine is clinically addictive. The evidence supporting such a claim is overwhelming and beyond
dispute, except by research scientists who work for the American tobacco companies. Lawsuits have
been settled in favor of the plaintiff based on this contention, and the cigarette companies
themselves acknowledge this in internal memoranda. Anyone who has ever tried to quit smoking can
testify from first hand experience as well.
Michael O'Neill
>
> In article <3B896B05...@indigo.ie>, Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I'm not going to argue John's point of view, but I certainly thought on
> > first reading that the *other* kind of arranged marraige was meant, i.e.
> > where the parents do the chosing and you jolly well better like it.
> >
> >
> > Of course, apart from the "young people today" needing their *freedom*,
> > there *was* sometimes a point to arranged marraiges of the old school
> > variety. Sometimes the parents really *did* have a clue who their son or
> > daughter would be best suited to.
>
The point is exactly as you have made it. I don't think institutions
like arranged marriages spring from nothing. In a land like India, where
many families live below the poverty threshold [whatever that might be],
and Indian people in general [rank generalisation] being very god with
scarce resources [how many successful indian businessmen do you see in
"white" cultures. Even in SOuth Africa under apartheid they made money],
it follows that the scarcest resource closest to home are your children,
in the following sense.
In Ireland there is a saying "The first generation gets the money, the
second keeps it, the third loses it." Sometimes this trend is bucked,
but a lot of times it proves true.
Now you can view this as a comment on how (i) being poor and wanting
more inspires a business acumen (ii) being the first generation of a
businessman inspires enjoying it and some thrift but (iii) being the
second generation means you have easy money, no motivation to get or
keep or earn more money and you fall prey to wild hedonism whether its
drink, drugs of sex [more rank generalisation here] and waste, gamble or
otherwise lose your fortune - perhaps bad investments also.
With indians of my acquaintance you tend to see money hoarded and used
to better the family members, with subsequent generations becoming
doctors, lawyers etc., i.e. moving into the professional classes. What
better way to ensure harmonious homes than vetting the prospective wife
or husband so, as you pointed out, the families can get on.
> There's this great scene in _Fiddler on the Roof_.
<snip excellent reference>
Yup. That about sums it up. Even where romantic love began the
relationship, it changes when kids arrive if not before that. The fifth
dirty nappy in twenty four hours or the endless washing of clothes or
attending on a child or hours getting them to sleep only to have them
wake two hours later really tests the mettle individually of both
partners as well as the relationship between them.
I have to laugh when I read of certain "celebrities" whose narcissistic
"relationships" look more like a choreographed sequence of temper
tantrums designed ot get press attention than anything else. You can't
help wondering if a little "arrangement" might have done something for
them. Then again, looking at their partners, you sometimes feel that
maybe the universe is turning out just as the Creator intended ...
:-)
> Bruce
> Uh, hmm, how do I tie this in to Tolkien? Were there arranged
> marriages in Tolkien?
Marriages in the Elven sense were as much an alignment of their spirits
as romantic love IIRC [and correct me if I'm wrong somebody], an
altogether more exalted state of being than lowly man, where Elvish
compatibility seemed to have been almost assured on a personal level.
Ob alt.religion.unification: I'd go so far as to say they were promoting
family values by their very nature!
Usually it was quite traumatic life decisions or experiences which drove
couples apart, such as Celeborn and Galadriel and Elrond and his wife.
> There were definitely times when fathers put strict limits on their
> daughters getting
> married--e.g. Thingol and Elrond.
Yes indeed. Trouble seemed to arise from the Half-Elven families, as
you've noted!
M.
grimgard
No one is questioning that. The question I posed is whether or not the
amount of nicotine which occurs naturally in tobacco is sufficient to
elicit an addictive response from the human body. Certainly the amount
found in a cigarette is sufficient, once the producers have finished
boosting it, as I can confirm from personal experience.
grimgard
Leo Fellmann
"John C" <coll...@potsdam.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:9me9c1$fns$1@ns1...
Well, odder thing is that here it's illegal to posess cannabis, but not
illegal to consume it. Funny.
John Savard
Hietbrink) wrote, in part:
>We get married based on something as ephemeral as feelings and a
>whole bunch of us get divorced again just as quickly for the same
>reason.
Oh, there's truth to that.
But I would think that if one thinks of marriage as something that is
supposed to be a lifelong relationship, then obviously you would want
to know someone with whom you were entering into it quite well
beforehand.
Raven
news:3B8C1056...@subdimension.com...
> > IMO it would not be outrageous to charge a repeat DUI
> > offender with attemped murder of everyone within a one
> > mile radius from the location of his or her arrest.
> I've always liked the idea that some one who gets arrested for a DUI,
> should have that charge, as well as malicious intent, and there are a
> few other things that they could be charged with.
DUI is IMHO qualitatively like to blindfolding yourself, then
emptying the mag of an assault rifle while turning in circles in a place
not empty of people. Quantitatively, of course, the risk to human life
is greater in the latter case.
Jon L. Beck.
Ashford Wyrd
"grimgard" <grim...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3B8BF79C...@prodigy.net...
Well, I don't know that marijuana itself is addictive in a clinical sense.
It certainly seems that the THC which marijuana contains can be addictive,
but I don't know that the amount of THC which naturally occurs in marijuana
leaves is clinically addictive. etc...
T.T. Arvind
<snip>
>But I would think that if one thinks of marriage as something that is
>supposed to be a lifelong relationship, then obviously you would want
>to know someone with whom you were entering into it quite well
>beforehand.
In the ideal arranged marriage, your family shortlists prospective spouses
whose families are known to members of your extended family. Typically, one
of your aunts or uncles (or someone they trust) would have known the girl
/ boy from the time they were little. Consequently, you often enter an
arranged marriage knowing a lot more about the person than you would in a year
of dating.
Of course, in practise, arranged marriages do fall far short of this
situation, but then so do love marriages.
Cheers,
Meneldil