What do children take from LOTR?
AC
Speaking Clock <ext...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> For all that, Middle Earth is a fallen world, but one that knows nothing
> of a divine Redeemer.
I just got to hand it to folks that wear their ignorance like it's something
to be proud of. How can someone have gone even a little beyond LotR and say
something like this? You know, if I was an editor, and I read this, I'd
make sure the guy went over to the Guardian. A suitable revenge for both
newspaper and writer.
--
Aaron Clausen
Bill O'Meally
"Speaking Clock" <ext2350(cut-this-out-)@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bjfsu2$i8ufh$1...@ID-93488.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> Sacred mysteries
> By Christopher Howse
> (Filed: 06/09/2003)
<snips>
> In what sense were the Valar creators? They are certainly not "gods",
or
> even emanations, because they are made by Iluvatar ("Father of All").
> But they shape the world through their great song at the beginning of
> time. Tolkien also had an idea of the human artist being a
> "sub-creator", participating in a sort of Platonic divine ideal.
>
> By contrast creation ex nihilo is an act that can be performed only by
a
> transcendent being who is not one of the inventory of things in the
> cosmos, but quite other from it, even if immanently present by his
> creative act.
>
> Middle Earth might end up as a Manichaean world in which a dark lord
is
> responsible for creating bad things. That is the problem with the
origin
> of the Uruk-hai, all of whom seem wicked. But Tolkien clearly didn't
> intend a dualistic world, and he is composing myth, not theology.
>
> For all that, Middle Earth is a fallen world, but one that knows
nothing
> of a divine Redeemer.
>
Surely *every* twelve-year-old reading LotR, or seeing the movies for
the first time is thinking the same thoughts.
--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf, THE TWO TOWERS
Sam's the Man
By which I think it safe to assume you disagree with one of these
statements. Further, since ME is without any kind of Redeemer in
anything but the symbolic sense, I assume you think that ME is not a
"fallen" world? See chapter 1 of Silmarillion.
AC
I never said it wasn't fallen. I disagree with the statement that it is
without a redeemer. If the descriptions of the last battle are any
indication, even the worst acts of Melkor will turn to good.
--
Aaron Clausen
Michelle J. Haines
Clock" <ext2350(cut-this-out-)@yahoo.com> says...
> Are any parents here
> currently ploughing through all three volumes with their offspring?
> What kind of reaction are you getting?
My oldest is not quite seven. Currently, we're reading The Hobbit,
because she's trying to do a lot of the reading herself, and she's
really not ready to read LOTR herself. But, she's obsessed with the
movies (hasn't seen TTT yet), and we discuss them a lot, and
introduce a lot of the book themes there -- like Gandalf being an
angel.
Michelle
Flutist
--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00) Zachary Mitchell
Theona Alexis (06/03/03) (01/12/94, fostered 09/05/01 - 07/23/03)
JXStern
>Thinking back to when I read LOTR to my littl'uns, they would probably
>have said the thing they gained most (from the books) was hours and
>hours of exiting story time long after the light should have gone out
>but I loved the exposure it gave them to an elevated style of language
>and to the concepts of courage, loyalty and hope. Are any parents here
>currently ploughing through all three volumes with their offspring?
>What kind of reaction are you getting?
I watched part of TT with an eight year old nephew the other day. His
memory of the story was remarkable, given that he hadn't read the book
or seen the movie since it was in theaters nine months ago!
I was explaining this and that scene to him, and wondering if he was
ready to read the book yet, and when I mentioned that the third part
of the story was coming out this Xmas, his first question was whether
any of the main characters die -- his main concern being Legolas,
apparently. With a lot of mumbling qualifications about the wider
question, I let on that Legolas was pretty much safe.
Then as Gollum appeared on the screen, I was coerced into somehow
giving away how things go at the Cracks of Doom. My nephew's interest
suddenly increased dramatically -- but I was unable to determine
exactly what aspect of the story it was that he hooked onto. Maybe it
was something as simple as a bad guy's demise, or maybe it was the
symbolism of the whole act as written -- whatever that symbolism may
be!
>Middle Earth might end up as a Manichaean world in which a dark lord is
>responsible for creating bad things. That is the problem with the origin
>of the Uruk-hai, all of whom seem wicked. But Tolkien clearly didn't
>intend a dualistic world, and he is composing myth, not theology.
Quite.
>For all that, Middle Earth is a fallen world, but one that knows nothing
>of a divine Redeemer.
Well, be that as it may, y'know. As Elrond says of ME, "... and the
elves thought that evil was ended, and it was not so." Or as Gandalf
says, "Sauron himself is but an emissary, other evils will come." Or
as Chevy Chase put it, "Francisco Franco is still dead." One
Redeemer, more or less, plus or minus a resurrection and/or second
coming, and there's still room for more before the world ends.
J.
Chocoholic
"Sam's the Man" <samd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8e2ac15.03090...@posting.google.com...
Earendil is not a redeemer? Then how was it that the Valar relented and came
to the aid of the Noldor?
Stan Brown
>
>Earendil is not a redeemer? Then how was it that the Valar relented and came
>to the aid of the Noldor?
Eärendil is not a redeemer, because he didn't redeem anyone. All he
did was pray to the Valar to take action. (I mean "all he did" in
contrast to the idea that he actually did any redeeming. Of course
he made a difficult and dangerous voyage on which many had been lost
before him.)
In Christian mythology as I understand it, their Christ is a
redeemer because he takes into his own person the penalty for the
sins of the world, and himself suffers the ultimate penalty. What
Eärendil did wasn't even remotely comparable.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien, Michelle J. Haines <mha...@io.nanc.com>
wrote:
>My oldest is not quite seven. Currently, we're reading The Hobbit,
>because she's trying to do a lot of the reading herself, and she's
>really not ready to read LOTR herself. But, she's obsessed with the
>movies (hasn't seen TTT yet), and we discuss them a lot, and
>introduce a lot of the book themes there -- like Gandalf being an
>angel.
Might I suggest that's a bad idea on two grounds?
(1) First, in the book Gandalf _isn't_ an angel. He is clearly more
than a Man, probably even more than an Elf; but the Men and Hobbits
of Middle-earth don't know clearly and neither does the reader, at
least not till we get to the Appendices.
(2) By revealing plot points of the book you are depriving your
daughter of the pleasure of discovering them for herself. A person
can only read any given book for the first time once; it would be a
pity to lose the freshness of discovering it as Tolkien unfolded it.
(Luckily the movie diverges pretty far from the book, but even so
seeing the movie first may make the book less pleasurable than it
would otherwise be. I don't mean to suggest you forbid her to see
the movie, of course.)
Stan Brown
>Then as Gollum appeared on the screen, I was coerced into somehow
>giving away how things go at the Cracks of Doom.
Coerced?
That reminds me of a bit in the MASH TV series:
Radar: "Major Burns forced Colonel Blake to " (do something stupid).
Hawkeye: "How did he force him?"
Radar: "By insisting."
How exactly were you _coerced_ into spoiling the ending?
the softrat
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>In article <mnlnlv4s8cjrerj4j...@4ax.com> in
>rec.arts.books.tolkien, JXStern <JXSternC...@gte.net> wrote:
>>Then as Gollum appeared on the screen, I was coerced into somehow
>>giving away how things go at the Cracks of Doom.
>
>Coerced?
>
>That reminds me of a bit in the MASH TV series:
>
>Radar: "Major Burns forced Colonel Blake to " (do something stupid).
>
>Hawkeye: "How did he force him?"
>
>Radar: "By insisting."
>
>How exactly were you _coerced_ into spoiling the ending?
Some people are ruled by their children. (Although generally they
vigorously deny it.)
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop
diggin'.
Martijn van der Kooij
read TH or LOTR, but what do you prefer? A version with pictures, or just
the imagenation?
What was the first time you read the stories to your children?
I will probably read the books first to them, and when they are older and
have enjoyed the books show the movies. (Extended editions ofcourse)
Martijn
"Speaking Clock" <ext2350(cut-this-out-)@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bjfsu2$i8ufh$1...@ID-93488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Here's a short article which appeared in Christopher Howse's weekly
> "Sacred Mysteries" column in yesterday's UK Daily Telegraph. It's on
> the DT website at http://www.telegraph.co.uk but I believe it's not
> available to readers outside the UK which is why I've posted it here.
> It sets out to tell us what children take from the LOTR films, but then
> draws on The Silmarillion and never actually answers the question.
>
> Thinking back to when I read LOTR to my littl'uns, they would probably
> have said the thing they gained most (from the books) was hours and
> hours of exiting story time long after the light should have gone out
> but I loved the exposure it gave them to an elevated style of language
> and to the concepts of courage, loyalty and hope. Are any parents here
> currently ploughing through all three volumes with their offspring?
> What kind of reaction are you getting?
>
> Speaking Clock
>
> *****************************************************
>
> Sacred mysteries
> By Christopher Howse
> (Filed: 06/09/2003)
>
> The Two Towers is out on DVD and there are only 100 shopping days till
> The Return of the King hits the big screens. What do children take from
> these films other than uncountable armies and resin masks?
>
> "Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn each represent the different offices of
> Christ: respectively priest, prophet and king," says someone called
> Bradley Birzer, the author of J R R Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth. "Each of
> these characters places himself in harm's way for the greater good; each
> is willing to lay down his life for his brother."
>
> Well, up to a point. Frodo the Hobbit is not so clearly a priestly
> archetype as Melchizedek in Genesis. He is willing to sacrifice himself,
> but Gollum ends up as a surrogate victim. You could even say that the
> Ring is the true victim, a holocaust wholly consumed by the fire of
> Orodruin.
>
> As for Gandalf, he is a Maia, an angel as we would say. When he fell in
> Khazad-dum he did not die as a man would, since he is by nature
> immortal, although the body he used was in some way regenerated.
>
> The Maiar, angels, are in Tolkien's mythology lesser spirits than the 14
> Valar who shared in creating the world. Here, it seems to me, we run
> into a difficulty.
>
> In what sense were the Valar creators? They are certainly not "gods", or
> even emanations, because they are made by Iluvatar ("Father of All").
> But they shape the world through their great song at the beginning of
> time. Tolkien also had an idea of the human artist being a
> "sub-creator", participating in a sort of Platonic divine ideal.
>
> By contrast creation ex nihilo is an act that can be performed only by a
> transcendent being who is not one of the inventory of things in the
> cosmos, but quite other from it, even if immanently present by his
> creative act.
>
> Another trouble is that a 15th Vala, called Melkor, rebelled and threw
> down the two lamps that gave light to the world. He is known in Middle
> Earth as Morgoth and remains bad. Sauron, like Gandalf only a Maia,
> turned to his service.
>
> Middle Earth might end up as a Manichaean world in which a dark lord is
> responsible for creating bad things. That is the problem with the origin
> of the Uruk-hai, all of whom seem wicked. But Tolkien clearly didn't
> intend a dualistic world, and he is composing myth, not theology.
>
Jesse Houwing
> My oldest son is 6 years old, so I will have to wait some time before I will
> read TH or LOTR, but what do you prefer? A version with pictures, or just
> the imagenation?
> What was the first time you read the stories to your children?
>
> I will probably read the books first to them, and when they are older and
> have enjoyed the books show the movies. (Extended editions ofcourse)
A friend of mine is a teacher at a local elementary school. He read The
Hobbit to his pupils using both the normal book and a fold-out version
of the book. Appart from the reading of the book the children did
several assignments on The Hobbits themes ranging from drawings, pottery
and woodwork. This allowed them (or rather forced them) to craete their
own fantasy version of The Hobbit, inspired by the fold-out pictures but
largely enriched by their own creativity. I think this is the best way
for children to get in touch with all the beautiful things Tolkien put
into his stories. Although nothing compares to actually reading the book
all by yourself.
Jesse
Bill O'Meally
"Martijn van der Kooij" <nopas...@spammers.nl> wrote in message
news:bjhfnp$io73i$1...@ID-186430.news.uni-berlin.de...
> My oldest son is 6 years old, so I will have to wait some time before
I will
> read TH or LOTR, but what do you prefer?
I don't think 6 is too young to grasp the storyline of TH.
A version with pictures, or just
> the imagenation?
The mind draws the best pictures.
Donald Shepherd
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> alleged...
> In article <vlnpd1l...@corp.supernews.com> in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien, Chocoholic <Choco...@Cocoa.org> wrote:
> >
> >Earendil is not a redeemer? Then how was it that the Valar relented and came
> >to the aid of the Noldor?
>
> Eärendil is not a redeemer, because he didn't redeem anyone. All he
> did was pray to the Valar to take action. (I mean "all he did" in
> contrast to the idea that he actually did any redeeming. Of course
> he made a difficult and dangerous voyage on which many had been lost
> before him.)
Earendil is not a redeemer because, consistent with Tolkien's view that
ME was merely set on prehistoric Earth, the redeemer was still to come.
--
Donald Shepherd
<donald_shepherd @ hotmail . com>
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open
sewer and die." - Mel Brooks
Liz Broadwell
>
>"Martijn van der Kooij" <nopas...@spammers.nl> wrote in message
>news:bjhfnp$io73i$1...@ID-186430.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> My oldest son is 6 years old, so I will have to wait some time before
>I will
>> read TH or LOTR, but what do you prefer?
>
>I don't think 6 is too young to grasp the storyline of TH.
>
>A version with pictures, or just
>> the imagenation?
>
>The mind draws the best pictures.
Don't speak for all of us. I don't have a visual imagination, so I like
seeing other people's pictures, if they're well drawn.
Peace,
Liz
--
Elizabeth Broadwell (ebroadwe at dept dot english dot upenn dot edu) at
the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
"Hastur! You're back!" "Yeah, the California ballot was getting kinda
full." -- _User Friendly_, 09/04/03
Bill O'Meally
"Liz Broadwell" <ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnblp37j....@dept.english.upenn.edu...
> In article <F9%6b.44006$hf1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, Bill
O'Meally wrote:
> >The mind draws the best pictures.
>
> Don't speak for all of us.
I wouldn't dare!
Chocoholic
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.19c5ebb54...@news.odyssey.net...
> In article <vlnpd1l...@corp.supernews.com> in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien, Chocoholic <Choco...@Cocoa.org> wrote:
> >
> >Earendil is not a redeemer? Then how was it that the Valar relented and
came
> >to the aid of the Noldor?
>
> Eärendil is not a redeemer, because he didn't redeem anyone. All he
> did was pray to the Valar to take action. (I mean "all he did" in
> contrast to the idea that he actually did any redeeming. Of course
> he made a difficult and dangerous voyage on which many had been lost
> before him.)
>
> In Christian mythology as I understand it, their Christ is a
> redeemer because he takes into his own person the penalty for the
> sins of the world, and himself suffers the ultimate penalty. What
> Eärendil did wasn't even remotely comparable.
>
I think your definition is overly strict.
Redeem (transitive verb)
1. To recover ownership of by paying a specified sum.
2. To pay off (a promissory note, for example).
3. To turn in (coupons, for example) and receive something in exchange.
4. To fulfill (a pledge, for example).
5. To convert into cash: redeem stocks.
6. To set free; rescue or ransom.
7. To save from a state of sinfulness and its consequences. See Synonyms at
save1.
8. To make up for: The low price of the clothes dryer redeems its lack of
special features.
9. To restore the honor, worth, or reputation of: You botched the last job
but can redeem yourself on this one.
Inasmuch as Earendil delivered the 'apology' necessary to get the Valar to
come to the aid of the elves in general I think he qualifies under several
of these definitions. He can 'redeem' them collectively without being 'The
Redeemer' of each and every one in the metaphysical/moral sense.
Michelle J. Haines
the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
>
> Might I suggest that's a bad idea on two grounds?
>
> (1) First, in the book Gandalf _isn't_ an angel. He is clearly more
> than a Man, probably even more than an Elf; but the Men and Hobbits
> of Middle-earth don't know clearly and neither does the reader, at
> least not till we get to the Appendices.
Dude, she's six. "Angel" is the closest she gets to conceptualizing
"Maia" at this point. Relax a little.
> (2) By revealing plot points of the book you are depriving your
> daughter of the pleasure of discovering them for herself. A person
> can only read any given book for the first time once; it would be a
> pity to lose the freshness of discovering it as Tolkien unfolded it.
She likes spoilers. And we haven't revealed the entire tale.
Largely things that occur in the appendices and the Silmarillion.
Also, "I'm not telling you that so you can read it in two or three
years." is going to piss her off a lot more than just answering the
question and then having her read it herself in two or three years.
Troels Forchhammer
Speaking Clock <ext2350(cut-this-out-)@yahoo.com> enriched us with:
>
> Are any parents here currently ploughing through all three
> volumes with their offspring? What kind of reaction are you
> getting?
I am currently working my way through Fellowship with the oldest -
a twelve year old boy.
He reads some of it himself and I read aloud when I've got the time
(he likes to have me read, so he isn't going very fast with his own
reading ;-)
The reactions are mostly on the "wow!" level - the "who would win ..."
kind of questions. There is, however, also a fascination with the
sub-creation itself; an urge to know more about Middle-earth´(though
often these are also of the kind of "who's the worst baddie" etc)
We haven't got all that far yet, but he has read the Hobbit a number
of times himself, and I do sense that it has set in motion some
deeper thoughts, though the associated questions are quite rare
(he has posed a few questions asking "why?)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail address is t.forch(a)mail.dk
Sam's the Man
Which ones in particular? He doesn't cash in coupons, not set any
slaves free. Does he redeem himself? Number (7) is exclusively a
Christian usage, because Jesus Christ is both the Redeemer and the
agent of salvation. The term 'Redeemer' is illustrative, Paul uses it
in context to illustrate the action of Jesus as being like the
redemption (ie buying back) of slaves.
Earendil might well be an agent of salvation, in that he intercedes on
behalf of the elves, and wins the compassion of the Valar. But he is
an agent of salvation without any redemptive role. If he redeemed the
elves, he would effectively (legally) own them.
> He can 'redeem' them collectively without being 'The
> Redeemer' of each and every one in the metaphysical/moral sense.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'the metaphysical/moral sense'. I
assumed that AC was referring to a form of Christian theology given
that he paired 'fallen world' and 'Redeemer' together.
the softrat
<mha...@io.nanc.com> wrote:
>
>Also, "I'm not telling you that so you can read it in two or three
>years." is going to piss her off a lot more than just answering the
>question and then having her read it herself in two or three years.
>
Apparently children are tougher than parents.
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
I have kleptomania. When it gets bad, I take something for it.
W. Citoan
> "Chocoholic" <Choco...@Cocoa.org> wrote in message
> news:<vlpdbsj...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> > each and every one in the metaphysical/moral sense.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by 'the metaphysical/moral sense'. I
> assumed that AC was referring to a form of Christian theology given
> that he paired 'fallen world' and 'Redeemer' together.
Not to mention that the original post stated a *divine* Redeemer which
was most certainly a Christian reference...
- W. Citoan
--
SEMPER UBI SUB UBI!!!!
[ Always wear underwater ]
JXStern
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>How exactly were you _coerced_ into spoiling the ending?
Mostly as you suggested -- I was coerced by his intelligent questions
on the matter, subject to my judgement that under his particular
circumstances, nothing was going to be preserved by my silence, and
his increased interest in the topic seemed a likely result of my
talking, as indeed seemed to eventuate.
J.
Stan Brown
>the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
>>
>> Might I suggest that's a bad idea on two grounds?
>>
>> (1) First, in the book Gandalf _isn't_ an angel. He is clearly more
>> than a Man, probably even more than an Elf; but the Men and Hobbits
>> of Middle-earth don't know clearly and neither does the reader, at
>> least not till we get to the Appendices.
>
>Dude, she's six. "Angel" is the closest she gets to conceptualizing
>"Maia" at this point. Relax a little.
Dude, did you even read what I wrote? The book doesn't tell you what
he is; why should you anticipate it?
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien, Martijn van der Kooij
>My oldest son is 6 years old, so I will have to wait some time before I will
>read TH or LOTR, but what do you prefer? A version with pictures, or just
>the imagenation?
>What was the first time you read the stories to your children?
First, please don't post upside down, and please _do_ trim your
quotes to just the specific point you're responding to -- as I've
done here.
Now, my suggestion is, begin with The Hobbit (which is a children's
book, as LotR is not). If at all possible, get the edition with
Tolkien's own illustrations.
Michelle J. Haines
sof...@pobox.com says...
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:14:18 -0600, Michelle J. Haines
> <mha...@io.nanc.com> wrote:
> >
> >Also, "I'm not telling you that so you can read it in two or three
> >years." is going to piss her off a lot more than just answering the
> >question and then having her read it herself in two or three years.
> >
> Life is tough!
>
> Apparently children are tougher than parents.
Exactly how many kids do you have? And school?
Michelle J. Haines
the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
> In article <MPG.19c682f34...@news.Qwest.net> in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien, Michelle J. Haines <mha...@io.nanc.com>
> wrote:
> >In article <MPG.19c5ecb3e...@news.odyssey.net>,
> >the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
> >>
> >> Might I suggest that's a bad idea on two grounds?
> >>
> >> (1) First, in the book Gandalf _isn't_ an angel. He is clearly more
> >> than a Man, probably even more than an Elf; but the Men and Hobbits
> >> of Middle-earth don't know clearly and neither does the reader, at
> >> least not till we get to the Appendices.
> >
> >Dude, she's six. "Angel" is the closest she gets to conceptualizing
> >"Maia" at this point. Relax a little.
>
> Dude, did you even read what I wrote? The book doesn't tell you what
> he is; why should you anticipate it?
An explanation of his return.
She finds it interesting.
It ties in various themes of self-sacrifice.
She's curious about it NOW. It's known as a "teachable moment" in
educator and/or homeschooler language.
Krikkit
In other words; he tricked you. :D
jj
--
Don't Move / Don't Talk Out Of Time / Don't Think
Don't Worry Everything's Just Fine / Just Fine
-Numb, U2
Krikkit
> Surely *every* twelve-year-old reading LotR, or seeing the movies for
> the first time is thinking the same thoughts.
Not that likely, no.
What I remember best from the first time I read the book was when the
wood-elves suddenly show up. That I reckognized, in the sense that Frodo
wanted to pretend like he sees elves every day, and tries desperately to
hide his curiosity so as not to look foolish. And when they left, they
left you with a emptiness begging to be filled. I still smile when I
read this part, but there's other bits of the book that hit me deeper
nowadays. It's strange, though, because I know about a few other people
who when reading the book the first time sort of focused on these
"childish" perspectives of certain scenes, and let these paint the
motives of the characters for much of the story. Apparently, LoTR seems
to be a children's book aswell as a great many other things.
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> An explanation of his return.
>
> She finds it interesting.
>
> It ties in various themes of self-sacrifice.
>
> She's curious about it NOW. It's known as a "teachable moment" in
> educator and/or homeschooler language.
Not explaining something to a curious child is simply torture. Besides, most
children positively enjoy hearing (or reading) favourite stories again, so I
doubt that the fact that Gandalf is a sort of angel will spoil much for her
in two or three years' time.
Of course many grownups (myself, for one), also enjoy rereading old
favourites.
Öjevind
the softrat
<mha...@io.nanc.com> wrote:
>In article <mutplv0p9hr604h6n...@4ax.com>,
>sof...@pobox.com says...
>> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:14:18 -0600, Michelle J. Haines
>> <mha...@io.nanc.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Also, "I'm not telling you that so you can read it in two or three
>> >years." is going to piss her off a lot more than just answering the
>> >question and then having her read it herself in two or three years.
>> >
>> Life is tough!
>>
>> Apparently children are tougher than parents.
>
>Exactly how many kids do you have? And school?
>
Two. School? Elementary to college as the years have rolled on.
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
I once played poker with tarot cards. I got a full house and
four people died.
Michelle J. Haines
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 23:21:44 -0600, Michelle J. Haines
> <mha...@io.nanc.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <mutplv0p9hr604h6n...@4ax.com>,
> >sof...@pobox.com says...
> >> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:14:18 -0600, Michelle J. Haines
> >> <mha...@io.nanc.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Also, "I'm not telling you that so you can read it in two or three
> >> >years." is going to piss her off a lot more than just answering the
> >> >question and then having her read it herself in two or three years.
> >> >
> >> Life is tough!
> >>
> >> Apparently children are tougher than parents.
> >
> >Exactly how many kids do you have? And school?
> >
> Two. School? Elementary to college as the years have rolled on.
And your parenting philosophy was that curiosity stuff was for the
birds? Children should know exactly what you want them to know,
exactly when you want them to know it, and God forbid they have an
original thought or creative moment?
Because, of course, discussing something with her that she's curious
about because you and Stan Brown are of the opinion that her
enjoyment of the books will be "spoiled" somehow is a terrible breech
of parental discipline. Someone better call DFS.
Alternatively, you could go squat your pompous butt over the in the
corner with the Ezzo parenting fascists or the childfree Nazis and
anyone else who thinks that kids don't deserve respect as human
beings; and I'll go about my business raising a kid who thinks
Tolkien is cool and curiosity is a good thing, since I already have a
good start on that, thanks.
AC
This is all becoming way too personal for me. Frankly I think all of you
should probably lift this back somewhat into the impersonal, hypothetical
realm. These are the sort of threads where things will inevitably be said
that lead to hurt feelings.
And if you don't stop it, I'll start a thread "The Five Hundred Things I
Hated About The Movies And Which I Will Repeat Often And With Considerable
Venom And Prejudice".
Just remember, you have been warned.
--
Aaron Clausen
Hasdrubal Hamilcar
Michelle J. Haines wrote:
> In article <f5rslvgjg4be0d9kf...@4ax.com>,
> sof...@pobox.com says...
>
>>On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 23:21:44 -0600, Michelle J. Haines
>><mha...@io.nanc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>
> Alternatively, you could go squat your pompous butt over the in the
> corner with the Ezzo parenting fascists or the childfree Nazis and
> anyone else who thinks that kids don't deserve respect as human
> beings; and I'll go about my business raising a kid who thinks
> Tolkien is cool and curiosity is a good thing, since I already have a
> good start on that, thanks.
>
About the movies, what about the violence? How did she stomach that?
Hasan
(no kids, but at least one is on the way)
Michelle J. Haines
@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
syed_hasa...@rogers.com-nospam says...
>
> Michelle J. Haines wrote:
>
> > Alternatively, you could go squat your pompous butt over the in the
> > corner with the Ezzo parenting fascists or the childfree Nazis and
> > anyone else who thinks that kids don't deserve respect as human
> > beings; and I'll go about my business raising a kid who thinks
> > Tolkien is cool and curiosity is a good thing, since I already have a
> > good start on that, thanks.
> >
>
> About the movies, what about the violence? How did she stomach that?
She tends to deal with creature violence and magic pretty calmly.
Sometimes she'll get a little nervous, but more in a "Wow this is
scary but fun scary; I'm going to cover my eyes and peak at the same
time." sort of way.
Because of the scale and the fact that the big screen tends to be
more emotionally overwhelming, though, we haven't let her watch any
of them in the theater. [Of course, age also played a bit part in
that, but she won't be seeing ROTK in the theater either.] So she
hasn't seen TTT yet.
However, she has seen both Harry Potter movies and Pirates of the
Caribbean in the theater, and was not significantly phased.
Gareth's a different case, and can be disturbed by creature violence,
so he hasn't yet. We were cautious with him and the HP movies at
home, but the scenes he found most disturbing were not necessarily
the ones you'd expect.
He'll watch LOTR, but generally, he's more, "You watching Lord of the
Rings? Can I watch Harry Potter?"
More or less, you just have to approach the subject carefully, and
you learn your kids' limits as you go. Katrina has fairly broad
ones. Gareth doesn't. And anything containing a lot of realistic,
non-magical/non-creature violence is still pretty much verboten in
our house.
the softrat
<mha...@io.nanc.com> wrote:
>
>And your parenting philosophy was that curiosity stuff was for the
>birds? Children should know exactly what you want them to know,
>exactly when you want them to know it, and God forbid they have an
>original thought or creative moment?
>
>Because, of course, discussing something with her that she's curious
>about because you and Stan Brown are of the opinion that her
>enjoyment of the books will be "spoiled" somehow is a terrible breech
>of parental discipline. Someone better call DFS.
>
>Alternatively, you could go squat your pompous butt over the in the
>corner with the Ezzo parenting fascists or the childfree Nazis and
>anyone else who thinks that kids don't deserve respect as human
>beings; and I'll go about my business raising a kid who thinks
>Tolkien is cool and curiosity is a good thing, since I already have a
>good start on that, thanks.
>
about yours.
Especially with your skill at (not) remembering arguments,
interpreting (other people's) motivations, and gratuitous ad hominum
attacks. I feel sorry for your kids. (It's a weakness I have.) What
drugs will they use when Mommy isn't there to coddle and lie to them
any more? Or and act as Spin Doctor.
As a great German philosopher said, "Um so schlimmer für die
Tatsache!". Ja, Mütterchen?
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop
diggin'.
Michelle J. Haines
sof...@pobox.com says...
>
> interpreting (other people's) motivations, and gratuitous ad hominum
> attacks.
Considering you jumped into the conversation making accusations of
inadequate parenting for discussing a BOOK with children....Time for
a conversation about pots and kettles?
And as someone so kindly informed me, you make a habit of attacking
people for grins?
Whatever, you and I are obviously never getting along.
*plonk*
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien, Michelle J. Haines <mha...@io.nanc.com>
wrote:
>Because, of course, discussing something with her that she's curious
>about because you and Stan Brown are of the opinion that her
>enjoyment of the books will be "spoiled" somehow
Dude, you really need to work on your reading comprehension.
Hint: Giving answers (particularly ones that aren't in the book) is
not the same thing as discussing something.
Michelle J. Haines
the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
>
> Hint: Giving answers (particularly ones that aren't in the book) is
> not the same thing as discussing something.
Asking and answering questions is usually part of a discussion. At
least, in my house. YMMV.
Shelly
"Speaking Clock" <ext2350(cut-this-out-)@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bjfsu2$i8ufh$1...@ID-93488.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> Are any parents here currently ploughing through all three volumes
with
> their offspring? What kind of reaction are you getting?
Hi, this is my first post here, so be gentle...
I read this thread with interest, as it reminded me of when I first
read LOTR in junior high, at age 11 or 12. I was told of the series
because a girl I was trying to befriend was reading one of the books
in the hall while waiting for a class to start. I asked her what she
was reading, and she told me, so I mentioned that maybe I'd check it
out, too. Then she got a bit snooty and 'suggested' that I might not
be able to 'get much out of it' (by this I figured she was saying I
couldn't understand such an advanced tome...). Then she suggested I
start with The Hobbit.
I got The Hobbit, and enjoyed it immensly, although from reading it, I
didn't understand how she felt I wouldn't understand TLOR. After
starting the TLoR, I realized what she meant, but I happened to have a
college reading level by then anyway, so I had no trouble with the
trilogy. I realized that there were many people my age who wouldn't
get as much out of the books on a first read; however, I felt then and
still feel now that if a child were *interested* enough in the story,
they'd be able to get through the books.
What did I take away from it? A love of Fantasy, an appreciation for
the style of writing I first encountered with JRRT, an awe of the
powers of love, a respect of determination, a wariness of uncontrolled
ambition, pity, a repugnance of evil, hope, joy, the thrill of
victory, an appreciation of a boring everyday life without having to
battle the forces of evil trying to protect it, the value of trust,
and so on.
I read those books at least once a year for many years, and although I
stopped when the pressures of working, parenting, paying debts, and
all the other grown-up responsibilities intruded, I am bringing the
books back into my home and happily introducing my own children to
them.
Shelly
put-the-no-mail-...@mail.ru
> In article <jg3tlvg5angd5o8gk...@4ax.com>,
> sof...@pobox.com says...
> >
> > interpreting (other people's) motivations, and gratuitous ad hominum
> > attacks.
>
> Considering you jumped into the conversation making accusations of
> inadequate parenting for discussing a BOOK with children....Time for
> a conversation about pots and kettles?
>
> And as someone so kindly informed me, you make a habit of attacking
> people for grins?
>
> Whatever, you and I are obviously never getting along.
>
> *plonk*
Congratulations (I kf'ed Mr.Freeman for anti-Irish bigotry quite a
while ago). Nevertheless, I'd put (a minor) part of the blame for
softrat's unprovoked _dirty_ personal attacks on his circumstances of
life. I can be irascible and caustic, too, and I can only guess at the
extent of pain my relatives will have to tolerate when I become an OAP.
Archie
--
"Search all the parks in all the cities
You'll find no statues of committees."
David Ogilvy
Taemon
> And as someone so kindly informed me, you make a habit of attacking
> people for grins?
Don't worry, it's just the Softrat. It isn't you, is what I'm trying to say.
Greetings, T.
the softrat
<mha...@io.nanc.com> wrote:
>In article <jg3tlvg5angd5o8gk...@4ax.com>,
>sof...@pobox.com says...
>>
>> interpreting (other people's) motivations, and gratuitous ad hominum
>> attacks.
>
>Considering you jumped into the conversation making accusations of
>inadequate parenting for discussing a BOOK with children....Time for
>a conversation about pots and kettles?
>
>And as someone so kindly informed me, you make a habit of attacking
>people for grins?
>
>Whatever, you and I are obviously never getting along.
>
>*plonk*
>
Denial is not just a River in Egypt.
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Look, if I could make one thing perfectly clear, then believe me I would.
--- Justin Alistair Lowde
the softrat
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>In article <MPG.19c82104a...@news.Qwest.net> in
>rec.arts.books.tolkien, Michelle J. Haines <mha...@io.nanc.com>
>wrote:
>>Because, of course, discussing something with her that she's curious
>>about because you and Stan Brown are of the opinion that her
>>enjoyment of the books will be "spoiled" somehow
>
>Dude, you really need to work on your reading comprehension.
>
>Hint: Giving answers (particularly ones that aren't in the book) is
>not the same thing as discussing something.
Denial is not just a River in Egypt.
(Her, not you, this time!)
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
the softrat
<mha...@io.nanc.com> wrote:
>In article <MPG.19c88a5d4...@news.odyssey.net>,
>the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
>>
>> Hint: Giving answers (particularly ones that aren't in the book) is
>> not the same thing as discussing something.
>
>Asking and answering questions is usually part of a discussion. At
>least, in my house. YMMV.
>
>Michelle
>Flutist
How 'just like a woman'! Give them any answer that will shut them up!
Great Parenting!
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Ash Wyrd
"Martijn van der Kooij" <nopas...@spammers.nl> wrote in message
news:bjhfnp$io73i$1...@ID-186430.news.uni-berlin.de...
> My oldest son is 6 years old, so I will have to wait some time before I
will
> read TH or LOTR, but what do you prefer? A version with pictures, or just
> the imagenation?
>
> I will probably read the books first to them, and when they are older and
> have enjoyed the books show the movies. (Extended editions ofcourse)
>
> Martijn
I was told that I read The Hobbit (by myself) when I was 3, and definately
remember reading LOTR when I was 6. Of cource I'm hyperlexic, so maybe thats
a bit early for most kids, but I swear that 6 is way too late for a kid not
to have learned to read. Pictures may be pretty, and hold a toddler's
attention, but a child who has passed the age of four does not require them.
Michelle J. Haines
ashfo...@hotmail.com says...
>
> I was told that I read The Hobbit (by myself) when I was 3, and definately
> remember reading LOTR when I was 6. Of cource I'm hyperlexic, so maybe thats
> a bit early for most kids, but I swear that 6 is way too late for a kid not
> to have learned to read. Pictures may be pretty, and hold a toddler's
> attention, but a child who has passed the age of four does not require them.
Reading LOTR at age six is WAY ahead of the curve. I'm pretty bright
and a born bookworm, but didn't read The Hobbit until I was eight
(partly because that's when I found it, though. We were a military
family and lived out of boxes sometimes) and LOTR when I was nine or
ten.
It is VERY uncommon for a four year old to read; especially to read
fluently. At the very least, The Hobbit is third to fourth grade
reading material for a fairly advanced student. Harry Potter is
third to fourth grade for a typical student.
Most four year olds still need pictures. :)
Steve Hayes
>
>"Speaking Clock" <ext2350(cut-this-out-)@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:bjfsu2$i8ufh$1...@ID-93488.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> Are any parents here currently ploughing through all three volumes
>with
>> their offspring? What kind of reaction are you getting?
>
>
>Hi, this is my first post here, so be gentle...
>
>I read this thread with interest, as it reminded me of when I first
>read LOTR in junior high, at age 11 or 12. I was told of the series
>because a girl I was trying to befriend was reading one of the books
>in the hall while waiting for a class to start. I asked her what she
>was reading, and she told me, so I mentioned that maybe I'd check it
>out, too. Then she got a bit snooty and 'suggested' that I might not
>be able to 'get much out of it' (by this I figured she was saying I
>couldn't understand such an advanced tome...). Then she suggested I
>start with The Hobbit.
>
>I got The Hobbit, and enjoyed it immensly, although from reading it, I
>didn't understand how she felt I wouldn't understand TLOR. After
>starting the TLoR, I realized what she meant, but I happened to have a
>college reading level by then anyway, so I had no trouble with the
>trilogy. I realized that there were many people my age who wouldn't
>get as much out of the books on a first read; however, I felt then and
>still feel now that if a child were *interested* enough in the story,
>they'd be able to get through the books.
I read LoTR to my son when he was 7, (and his sister was 8 and brother 5) and
he read read it himself when he was 10, and then read it several times after
that. The other two did not read it much. My daughter prefers non fiction. My
younger son enjoys fantasy, but found Terry Pratchett more to his taste than
Tolkien.
None of them have seen, or want to see, the movie.
So different children take different things from LoTR.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: haye...@yahoo.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm
Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
self-righteous person who *wants* to have vehement debates about
her parenting style on any and all newsgroups she gets into.
Why does she use the .signature that she does? Could it be so
as to provoke comments and questions from people, so that she
can ramble on OT about her favourite subjects but blame other
people for starting it? There's a fine line between wearing
your heart on your sleeve and having a chip on your shoulder.
I've resisted saying this in the past because I didn't
particularly want to play the bad guy, but I really don't like
the direction this is heading. Please just don't take her bait.
--Jamie. (nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita)
andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
@csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)
the softrat
address @ bottom of message) wrote:
> Look... folks... we seem to be dealing with a rather
>self-righteous person who *wants* to have vehement debates about
>her parenting style on any and all newsgroups she gets into.
>Why does she use the .signature that she does? Could it be so
>as to provoke comments and questions from people, so that she
>can ramble on OT about her favourite subjects but blame other
>people for starting it? There's a fine line between wearing
>your heart on your sleeve and having a chip on your shoulder.
>
> I've resisted saying this in the past because I didn't
>particularly want to play the bad guy, but I really don't like
>the direction this is heading. Please just don't take her bait.
>
Ooooo! Interesting point. Hmmmmm.....
(Rats are suckers for good bait.)
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
May the Farce Be With You
the softrat
<ashfo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I was told that I read The Hobbit (by myself) when I was 3, and definately
>remember reading LOTR when I was 6. Of cource I'm hyperlexic, so maybe thats
>a bit early for most kids, but I swear that 6 is way too late for a kid not
>to have learned to read. Pictures may be pretty, and hold a toddler's
>attention, but a child who has passed the age of four does not require them.
>
Brunhoff, in French when I was three or four. It was only when I go to
be seven that I discovered that I couldn't read French. I still had
the plot correct though.
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be
misquoted, then used against you.
Michelle J. Haines
no-mail-out-...@mail.ru says...
>
> Congratulations (I kf'ed Mr.Freeman for anti-Irish bigotry quite a
> while ago). Nevertheless, I'd put (a minor) part of the blame for
> softrat's unprovoked _dirty_ personal attacks on his circumstances of
> life. I can be irascible and caustic, too, and I can only guess at the
> extent of pain my relatives will have to tolerate when I become an OAP.
OAP?
Michelle J. Haines
m...@privacy.net says...
>
> Why does she use the .signature that she does?
Because it's culturally appropriate to the misc.kids* hierarchy, and
I've never figured out how to make Gravity do automatically rotating
.sigs or pin .sigs to specific newsgroups. And I've been too lazy to
rotate .sigs lately.
Let me know if you have instructions on how to do it, though.
[And I had a fight with Rat about non-parenting issues, too. :)]
Een Wilde Ier
> Look... folks... we seem to be dealing with a rather
> self-righteous person who *wants* to have vehement debates about
> her parenting style on any and all newsgroups she gets into.
> Why does she use the .signature that she does? Could it be so
> as to provoke comments and questions from people, so that she
> can ramble on OT about her favourite subjects but blame other
> people for starting it? There's a fine line between wearing
> your heart on your sleeve and having a chip on your shoulder.
>
> I've resisted saying this in the past because I didn't
> particularly want to play the bad guy, but I really don't like
> the direction this is heading. Please just don't take her bait.
So, Softrat attacks her out of the blue as an unfit parent (completely
without justification, from what I've seen, but hey, what's new), and
it's *her* fault?
Wow.
--
Een Wilde Ier
A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely
foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. - Douglas
Adams
Een Wilde Ier
> On 11 Sep 2003 02:24:22 GMT, m...@privacy.net (Jamie Andrews; real
> address @ bottom of message) wrote:
>
>
>> Look... folks... we seem to be dealing with a rather
>>self-righteous person who *wants* to have vehement debates about
>>her parenting style on any and all newsgroups she gets into.
>>Why does she use the .signature that she does? Could it be so
>>as to provoke comments and questions from people, so that she
>>can ramble on OT about her favourite subjects but blame other
>>people for starting it? There's a fine line between wearing
>>your heart on your sleeve and having a chip on your shoulder.
>>
>> I've resisted saying this in the past because I didn't
>>particularly want to play the bad guy, but I really don't like
>>the direction this is heading. Please just don't take her bait.
>>
>
> Ooooo! Interesting point. Hmmmmm.....
>
> (Rats are suckers for good bait.)
And this is considered "cute" behaviour.
--
Een Wilde Ier
A liberal is a conservative who's been hugged. - David Raatz
ste...@nomail.com
: So, Softrat attacks her out of the blue as an unfit parent (completely
: it's *her* fault?
: Wow.
I second that.
Stephen
Stan Brown
>I've never figured out how to make Gravity do automatically rotating
>.sigs or pin .sigs to specific newsgroups. And I've been too lazy to
>rotate .sigs lately.
>
>Let me know if you have instructions on how to do it, though.
Get version 2.60, then do Newsgroup -> Properties -> Signature.
http://gravity.tbates.org/
Bob F.
news:MPG.19c838f6d...@news.Qwest.net:
>
> More or less, you just have to approach the subject carefully, and
> you learn your kids' limits as you go. Katrina has fairly broad
> ones. Gareth doesn't. And anything containing a lot of realistic,
> non-magical/non-creature violence is still pretty much verboten in
> our house.
>
> Michelle
> Flutist
Our 2 1/2 year old son practically has a fit when Thomas the Tank Engine
gets derailed in a video, but the same thing in a book doesn't phase him in
the least. His (and his younger brothers) exposure to movies and videos
will be pretty gradual. Hell, those damn flying monkeys in Oz scared the
crud out of me when I was six, I can't imagine exposing him to the stuff in
PJ's movies at that age.
Michelle J. Haines
the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
> In article <MPG.19c9d82f6...@news.Qwest.net> in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien, Michelle J. Haines <mha...@io.nanc.com>
> wrote:
> >Because it's culturally appropriate to the misc.kids* hierarchy, and
> >I've never figured out how to make Gravity do automatically rotating
> >.sigs or pin .sigs to specific newsgroups. And I've been too lazy to
> >rotate .sigs lately.
> >
> >Let me know if you have instructions on how to do it, though.
>
> Get version 2.60, then do Newsgroup -> Properties -> Signature.
> http://gravity.tbates.org/
That's the SuperGravity update, correct? I've been nervous about
putting that in yet. *sigh* I suppose I should bite the bullet and
do it, then.
Michelle J. Haines
littlem...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Our 2 1/2 year old son practically has a fit when Thomas the Tank Engine
> gets derailed in a video, but the same thing in a book doesn't phase him in
> the least. His (and his younger brothers) exposure to movies and videos
> will be pretty gradual. Hell, those damn flying monkeys in Oz scared the
> crud out of me when I was six, I can't imagine exposing him to the stuff in
> PJ's movies at that age.
Kids are different. She actually likes to watch my husband butcher
our meat rabbits and finds all the anatomy interesting. Gareth would
run screaming. Also, Sunday she wanted to ride in the ambulance with
Gareth and I because she thinks that would be neat and she's never
had the chance to ride in the ambulance. Um, no dear. Not today.
[Actually, we had a neighbor kid come into our house uninvited the
first time my kids ever watched LOTR, and he DID run out screaming
"Monsters! Monsters!"]
She does tend get get emotional about other things, but medical
emergencies and Orcs are some of them, I guess. S'ok with me.
Bob F.
> In article <Xns93F3620D97E09li...@130.133.1.4>,
> littlem...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> Our 2 1/2 year old son practically has a fit when Thomas the Tank
>> Engine gets derailed in a video, but the same thing in a book doesn't
>> phase him in the least. His (and his younger brothers) exposure to
>> movies and videos will be pretty gradual. Hell, those damn flying
>> monkeys in Oz scared the crud out of me when I was six, I can't
>> imagine exposing him to the stuff in PJ's movies at that age.
>
> Kids are different. She actually likes to watch my husband butcher
> our meat rabbits and finds all the anatomy interesting. Gareth would
> run screaming. Also, Sunday she wanted to ride in the ambulance with
> Gareth and I because she thinks that would be neat and she's never
> had the chance to ride in the ambulance. Um, no dear. Not today.
>
>
> Michelle
> Flutist
No question, and I wasn't criticizing, just sharing my experience. On
vacation last week I took him out in row boat to haul up a crab pot. He
was absolutely thrilled with the idea, but not quite so happy when he had
to share a small boat with some giant sea spiders. Didn't phase him a bit
when it went into the pot, but I think understanding our relationship to
food/death is a couple years away.
Bob
Michelle J. Haines
littlem...@yahoo.com says...
>
> No question, and I wasn't criticizing, just sharing my experience. On
> vacation last week I took him out in row boat to haul up a crab pot. He
> was absolutely thrilled with the idea, but not quite so happy when he had
> to share a small boat with some giant sea spiders. Didn't phase him a bit
> when it went into the pot, but I think understanding our relationship to
> food/death is a couple years away.
*heh* We I finally figured that connection out (my grandmother kept
chickens), I became a vegetarian for about a year or so, my parents
say. :)
Michelle
flutist
Kathy Cole
@ bottom of message) wrote:
> Look... folks... we seem to be dealing with a rather
> self-righteous person who *wants* to have vehement debates about
> her parenting style on any and all newsgroups she gets into.
You're delusional if you think Michelle's some sort of troll.
the softrat
wrote:
*I* don't think that she is a troll.
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Invalid thought detected. Close all mental processes and restart
body.
Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
> without justification, from what I've seen, but hey, what's new), and
> it's *her* fault?
Show me a post where Softrat has attacked anyone as an
unfit parent, other than when responding to a post in which
*his* parenting style was directly attacked and he was called
"pompous" and compared to a Nazi.
I'm not Sotfart's biggest fan, but the accusation above is
not true as far as I can tell. I was about to say that I agree
with the "pompous" charge, but I'm not even sure if that's true.
Was W. C. Fields genuinely pompous?
Steuard Jensen
<bjhfnp$io73i$1...@ID-186430.news.uni-berlin.de>:
> My oldest son is 6 years old, so I will have to wait some time
> before I will read TH or LOTR, but what do you prefer? A version
> with pictures, or just the imagenation?
I didn't even own a version with pictures until I bought _The
Annotated Hobbit_ a couple years ago. I vote for a world of pure
imagination! :)
> What was the first time you read the stories to your children?
No children of my own yet, but I tried to read _The Hobbit_ to my
little sister when she was something like eight or nine (I'm five
years older). It didn't work, unfortunately, and I may have scared
her away from Tolkien for years. (She finally read LotR last year,
and loved it.)
On the other hand, my father read me _The Hobbit_ when I was six, and
I enjoyed it so much that I started reading ahead a page or two at a
time (I even tried to convince him that he'd just gotten farther than
he remembered the previous night!). I'd finished LotR on my own at
least once by the end of second grade.
So in the end, I think it depends very much on the child. But then,
that's the standard mantra of parenting, right? :)
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
<MPG.19ca52d6a...@news.Qwest.net>:
> the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...> > >...I've never figured out how to make Gravity do automatically
> > >rotating .sigs or pin .sigs to specific newsgroups.
> > Get version 2.60, then...
> That's the SuperGravity update, correct?
Wait a minute... there's a newsreader called "supergravity" and I
don't know about it? This must be fixed! :)
[For those who don't know, I'm a graduate student in physics studying
string theory. Much of my research has been related to supergravity,
a theory of physics that is a "low energy limit" of string theory.]
ObTolkien: Did Tolkien have a distinctive way of signing his letters?
Many of the examples of his closings in _Letters_ use "Yours
sincerely", and the vast majority seem to include the word "yours" in
one way or another. How common was such phrasing at the time? For
that matter, how common is it now?
Steuard Jensen
Ash Wyrd
"Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
message news:bjrg6s$mab8a$1...@ID-193590.news.uni-berlin.de...
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Een Wilde Ier <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > So, Softrat attacks her out of the blue as an unfit parent (completely
> > without justification, from what I've seen, but hey, what's new), and
> > it's *her* fault?
>
> Show me a post where Softrat has attacked anyone as an
> unfit parent, other than when responding to a post in which
> *his* parenting style was directly attacked and he was called
> "pompous" and compared to a Nazi.
>
I seem to remember the huggy one acusing Michelle of not being strong
enough to stand up to her child, FIRST
Steuard Jensen
in article <bjomcm$lbs1b$1...@ID-193590.news.uni-berlin.de>:
> Look... folks... we seem to be dealing with a rather
> self-righteous person who *wants* to have vehement debates about
Others have already more or less said this, but everything I've seen
of her indicates that Michelle is a perfectly nice person without any
nasty ulterior motives behind her posts. In fact, I think she's
pretty cool. :)
That makes it all the more distressing to me that this is the second
time I've seen regulars here attacking her for no reason that I can
discern. Honestly, folks, I've always tried to assure people that
these groups can be friendly and welcoming to newcomers, but there
have been times in the past few weeks when I've started thinking that
I'm wrong. It doesn't take many belittling or accusatory posts to
make the whole group start looking inhospitable, and I don't want to
see newcomers scared away by a few people having a bad day. Try to
treat each other decently, okay?
Steuard Jensen
Michelle J. Haines
sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu says...
> In fact, I think she's
> pretty cool. :)
*blush* Well, thank you.
Michelle
Flutist
Michelle J. Haines
sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu says...
>
> Wait a minute... there's a newsreader called "supergravity" and I
> don't know about it? This must be fixed! :)
Microplanet apparently went out of business and discontinued support
of Gravity. SuperGravity is an update, but privately done and
obviously you can't except any guarantees it's not going to turn your
computer in a smoking pile of junk. :)
Michelle J. Haines
sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu says...
>
> I didn't even own a version with pictures until I bought _The
> Annotated Hobbit_ a couple years ago. I vote for a world of pure
> imagination! :)
My first copy of The Hobbit was the one with all the illustrations
from the animated movie. After finding it, I read it until the cover
fell off, the pages fell apart, and it was generally rendered a
useless pile of paper rather than a collector's item, which I think
it was originally intended as. Luckily, my dad wasn't upset by this.
:)
He also had the boxed LOTR set, which my husband finally threw out
just recently, because the covers and quite a few pages were missing
on all three volumes.
Ash Wyrd
"Michelle J. Haines" <mha...@io.nanc.com> wrote in message
> My first copy of The Hobbit was the one with all the illustrations
> from the animated movie. After finding it, I read it until the cover
> fell off, the pages fell apart, and it was generally rendered a
> useless pile of paper rather than a collector's item, which I think
> it was originally intended as. Luckily, my dad wasn't upset by this.
> :)
>
I remember that volume.... For some reason I also remember there were
illistrations from scenes in the book that were not in the animated film (I
particularly remember a pic of Beorn)
Michelle J. Haines
ashfo...@hotmail.com says...
Now that you mention it, there was. Maybe they drew him as concept
art earlier in the movie process, and it was cut later?
The Sidhekin
Well, I guess that settles it. Jamie is delusional. I am
delusional. Everyone who disagrees is delusional.
And the fact that she has provoked a flood of messages and
polarized the threads (no one seems to be taking a middle ground),
must surely be due to bad luck on her part.
Now, if she had been a troll, she would have been one of the more
successful of that specimen on this group lately. For whatever kind
of badge of honour that must be, to a troll. As she is not, I would
suggest she study the MO of a troll, and modify her behaviour so that
it no longer bears so strong resemblance to it. All in her own
interest, I would suppose.
(Unless of course she has some _legitimate_ (i.e. non-troll) reason
for provoking debates such as this. I cannot imagine any such, but
hey, we have already established that I am delusional, so I guess my
imagination does not count for much.)
-SK-
--
perl -e 'print "Just another Perl ${\(trickster and hacker)},";'
The Sidhekin *proves* Sidhe did it!
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
mha...@io.nanc.com wrote:
> In article <l2c8b.13$cy3....@news.uchicago.edu>,
> sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu says...
> > Quoth mha...@io.nanc.com in article
> > <MPG.19ca52d6a...@news.Qwest.net>:
> >
> > > That's the SuperGravity update, correct?
> >
> > Wait a minute... there's a newsreader called "supergravity" and I
> > don't know about it? This must be fixed! :)
>
> Microplanet apparently went out of business and discontinued support
> of Gravity. SuperGravity is an update, but privately done and
> obviously you can't except any guarantees it's not going to turn your
> computer in a smoking pile of junk. :)
my computer was a smoking pile of junk
a transformer or something overheated and caught fire
Bob F.
remove.allverden.nospam.invalid> wrote in news:7xad9ah...@laptop.dav:
>
> (Unless of course she has some _legitimate_ (i.e. non-troll) reason
> for provoking debates such as this. I cannot imagine any such, but
> hey, we have already established that I am delusional, so I guess my
> imagination does not count for much.)
>
>
> -SK-
In the posts I have read she has been pretty darn polite, moreso than quite
a few of the responses she has recieved. She ain't shy about defending her
opinions, but that isn't a bad quality. You might not be entertaining
delusions, but you do seem to be getting something out of her posts that I
don't see.
Michelle J. Haines
ka...@scconsult.com says...
Kathy's known me for four years, approximately, so you'd better not
trust her. *wink*
She can attest to the fact, though, that if I had a burning desire to
have a parenting fight, I do have my pick of charmers, from Steve
"All discipline is child abuse, you f*****ers, and I know this
because I have sex with people", to Marjorie "All girls in sleeveless
dresses are sluts, but how dare you take it personally that I called
your daughter sluts because I don't care if you're raising your
daughter like a slut and you hate me because I'm Jewish" to the
recent influx of "Your crotch-fruit breathed on me so you're an unfit
parent, you brain-dead moo" alt.support.childfree friendly
neighborhood greeting committee.
She can probably also attest to the fact that I do have rather a
temper.
TT Arvind
> you brain-dead moo
I hope Tamf doesn't read that phrase.
--
Meneldil
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and
praiseworthy.
-- Ambrose Bierce
TradeSurplus
>Een Wilde Ier <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> So, Softrat attacks her out of the blue as an unfit parent (completely
>> without justification, from what I've seen, but hey, what's new), and
>> it's *her* fault?
>
> Show me a post where Softrat has attacked anyone as an
>unfit parent, other than when responding to a post in which
>*his* parenting style was directly attacked and he was called
>"pompous" and compared to a Nazi.
As with most things usenet, there are two possible interpretations of who
started it. Depending on how sensitive you are and how much you know of
softy's posting style, you might well find the following insulting:
In article <mutplv0p9hr604h6n...@4ax.com>, sof...@pobox.com
says...
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:14:18 -0600, Michelle J. Haines wrote:
> >
> >Also, "I'm not telling you that so you can read it in two or three
> >years." is going to piss her off a lot more than just answering the
> >question and then having her read it herself in two or three years.
> >
> Life is tough!
>
> Apparently children are tougher than parents.
That "children are tougher than parents" crack could be seen as an insult
and thus as the post that started Michelle's antipathy for the huggable one.
Others who are more familiar with what passes for humour to aft's resident
rodent would probably either ignore it or respond in like manner.
Of such misunderstandings are lasting enemies made.
Trade.
Jette Goldie
"Steuard Jensen" <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote
> ObTolkien: Did Tolkien have a distinctive way of signing his letters?
> Many of the examples of his closings in _Letters_ use "Yours
> sincerely", and the vast majority seem to include the word "yours" in
> one way or another. How common was such phrasing at the time? For
> that matter, how common is it now?
>
Uh, Steuard? Look at any good (UK) dictionary pre-1960. That was
the advised method of signing letters. "yours sincerely" if you were
addressing someone whose name you knew, "yours faithfully" if
you didn't know their name. "Your obedient servant" when addressing
certain levels of peerage. (the list takes about six pages in my
Chambers 20th Century <g>)
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> Uh, Steuard? Look at any good (UK) dictionary pre-1960. That was
> the advised method of signing letters. "yours sincerely" if you were
> addressing someone whose name you knew, "yours faithfully" if
> you didn't know their name. "Your obedient servant" when addressing
> certain levels of peerage. (the list takes about six pages in my
> Chambers 20th Century <g>)
And "Your most obed't humble servant " if you were writing to the Admiralty,
as everyone who has read the Hornblower books knows.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
meddelandet news:bjrg6s$mab8a$1...@ID-193590.news.uni-berlin.de...
[snip]
> I'm not Sotfart's biggest fan, but the accusation above is
> not true as far as I can tell. I was about to say that I agree
> with the "pompous" charge, but I'm not even sure if that's true.
> Was W. C. Fields genuinely pompous?
Sotfart? Who is this Sotfart dude you are talking about?
Öjevind
Hasdrubal Hamilcar
Jette Goldie wrote:
> "Steuard Jensen" <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote
>
>>ObTolkien: Did Tolkien have a distinctive way of signing his letters?
>>Many of the examples of his closings in _Letters_ use "Yours
>>sincerely", and the vast majority seem to include the word "yours" in
>>one way or another. How common was such phrasing at the time? For
>>that matter, how common is it now?
>>
>
>
> Uh, Steuard? Look at any good (UK) dictionary pre-1960. That was
> the advised method of signing letters. "yours sincerely" if you were
> addressing someone whose name you knew, "yours faithfully" if
> you didn't know their name. "Your obedient servant" when addressing
> certain levels of peerage. (the list takes about six pages in my
> Chambers 20th Century <g>)
>
>
'Your worst nightmare' if addressing military officers while your name
was Rambo.
Hasan
the softrat
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
>Sotfart? Who is this Sotfart dude you are talking about?
>
>Öjevind
>
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.
Öjevind Lång
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 00:33:37 +0200, "Öjevind Lång"
> <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> >
> >Sotfart? Who is this Sotfart dude you are talking about?
> >
> >Öjevind
> >
> Ich bin ja Sotfart!
Assuming new titles, eh? Why, you are worse than Saruman!
Öjevind
johnj
news:hKr8b.413$d1....@nntpserver.swip.net...
It was the usual method of ending letters used by the Civil Service until
the 1950s, when the 20th Century caught up with them. I saw a memo to this
effect when I joined the Service in 1963 ...
Raven
news:j1r8b.8768$Z25.75...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Uh, Steuard? Look at any good (UK) dictionary pre-1960. That was
> the advised method of signing letters. "yours sincerely" if you were
> addressing someone whose name you knew, "yours faithfully" if
> you didn't know their name.
If you didn't know their name, how did you manage to put the right name
and address on the envelope? :-)
Corbie.
Jette Goldie
"Raven" <jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote in message
news:Vf59b.687$o33...@news.get2net.dk...
"To Whom It Concerns"
or
"The Occupier"
or
"The Bishop of London"
or even "The Editor, The Times, Fleet Street, London" - which
you would have addressed as "Sir" (no "dear")
;-)
Igenlode
>
> "Steuard Jensen" <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote
> > ObTolkien: Did Tolkien have a distinctive way of signing his letters?
> > Many of the examples of his closings in _Letters_ use "Yours
> > sincerely", and the vast majority seem to include the word "yours" in
> > one way or another. How common was such phrasing at the time? For
> > that matter, how common is it now?
> >
> Uh, Steuard? Look at any good (UK) dictionary pre-1960. That was
> the advised method of signing letters. "yours sincerely" if you were
> addressing someone whose name you knew, "yours faithfully" if
> you didn't know their name.
So far as I am aware, it still is...
What's the post-1960 recommendation - "Have a nice day"? :-)
--
Igenlode <Igenl...@nym.alias.net> Lurker Extraordinaire
The moment you stop being polite, you lose credibility in what you say.
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2003 Jette Goldie wrote:
>
> >
> > "Steuard Jensen" <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote
> > > ObTolkien: Did Tolkien have a distinctive way of signing his letters?
> > > Many of the examples of his closings in _Letters_ use "Yours
> > > sincerely", and the vast majority seem to include the word "yours" in
> > > one way or another. How common was such phrasing at the time? For
> > > that matter, how common is it now?
> > >
> > Uh, Steuard? Look at any good (UK) dictionary pre-1960. That was
> > the advised method of signing letters. "yours sincerely" if you were
> > addressing someone whose name you knew, "yours faithfully" if
> > you didn't know their name.
>
> So far as I am aware, it still is...
>
> What's the post-1960 recommendation - "Have a nice day"? :-)
have a marseilles day
Öjevind Lång
> Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
[snip]
> > And "Your most obed't humble servant " if you were writing to the
> Admiralty,
> > as everyone who has read the Hornblower books knows.
> >
> > Öjevind
>
> It was the usual method of ending letters used by the Civil Service until
> the 1950s, when the 20th Century caught up with them. I saw a memo to
this
> effect when I joined the Service in 1963 ...
Wow. That's interesting. With the shorthand spelling "obed't" still
retained?
Öjevind
Jette Goldie
"Igenlode" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:200309160144...@gacracker.org...
> On 12 Sep 2003 Jette Goldie wrote:
>
> >
> > "Steuard Jensen" <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote
> > > ObTolkien: Did Tolkien have a distinctive way of signing his letters?
> > > Many of the examples of his closings in _Letters_ use "Yours
> > > sincerely", and the vast majority seem to include the word "yours" in
> > > one way or another. How common was such phrasing at the time? For
> > > that matter, how common is it now?
> > >
> > Uh, Steuard? Look at any good (UK) dictionary pre-1960. That was
> > the advised method of signing letters. "yours sincerely" if you were
> > addressing someone whose name you knew, "yours faithfully" if
> > you didn't know their name.
>
> So far as I am aware, it still is...
>
> What's the post-1960 recommendation - "Have a nice day"? :-)
MicroSoft keeps trying to make me finish letters with
"yours truly" (an Americanism) I'm not allowed to
turn off the spelling/grammar-checker at work, even
though my own knowledge of spelling and grammar
is more appropriate (darn thing keeps trying to use
American spellings - and the "add word" function
has been disabled by the IT dept) :-(
the softrat
<j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>
>MicroSoft keeps trying to make me finish letters with
>"yours truly" (an Americanism) I'm not allowed to
>turn off the spelling/grammar-checker at work, even
>though my own knowledge of spelling and grammar
>is more appropriate (darn thing keeps trying to use
>American spellings - and the "add word" function
>has been disabled by the IT dept) :-(
Whuht's the Scots Way? "Yours in Haggis"?
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize. -- Steven Wright
Jette Goldie
"the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:s2uemvcrolresrq57...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:14:17 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
> <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
> >
> >MicroSoft keeps trying to make me finish letters with
> >"yours truly" (an Americanism) I'm not allowed to
> >turn off the spelling/grammar-checker at work, even
> >though my own knowledge of spelling and grammar
> >is more appropriate (darn thing keeps trying to use
> >American spellings - and the "add word" function
> >has been disabled by the IT dept) :-(
>
> Whuht's the Scots Way? "Yours in Haggis"?
>
Up yer kilt, laddie
or See Yu Jimmie
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> Whuht's the Scots Way? "Yours in Haggis"?
Wasn't there a secret army of Scottish Jews called Hagganah?
Öjevind
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
possibly
the lost ten tribes of israel migrated from babylon
across the europe to the british isle
(the tribe of dan gave its name to the danube)
the daughter of the last king of judah (or israel?)
took a stone from the throne as she fled across the mediterrean
and through the pillars of hercules on her way to britain
to join the other exiles of israel
and that stone became the blarney stone of legend
this theory is called british israelism or british identity
a delightful and tolerant english eccentricity
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/britisrael.html
Hasdrubal Hamilcar
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
>>Wasn't there a secret army of Scottish Jews called Hagganah?
>
>
> possibly
>
> the lost ten tribes of israel migrated from babylon
> across the europe to the british isle
> (the tribe of dan gave its name to the danube)
I am very fascinated by this whole field of study. I
This theory is one of many.
Personally I think the lost tribes are still where the king put them--in
Iran and Afghanistan. The Taliban are the lost tribes, ... the Pashtun
tribe (from which they hail) has a line of kings (one Zahir Shah just
died recently) claiming to be descended from a nephew of king Saul,
named Afghana. They have their geneologies, they "look" Jewish, and
there are numerous reports of this ancestral link (which was apparently
known when they converted to Islam in Muhammads time). Some of the
tribe names match the names of the lost as well. Rabbani (Rueben),
Afridi (Ephrain), issachar (issa Kelvi) .
but I digress. See this page for more on this.
http://www.moshiach.com/features/tribes/afghanistan.php
This whole field is tre's debateable. (sp)
I remember one tribe used to name every place they settled after their
forefather "Dan". Could the numerous "stans" in central asia be a
corruption of this name? Pakistan is an exception, its a modern
invention. Uzbekstan, Afghanistan, Tartaristan etc.
There was said to be a river rushing out of a rock which blocked the
path of the tribes moving east, and the river was called Sambatyon
(greek) or Sabbatun in Hebrew which means 7. I think the Indus river
fits this well, not just for the name (the old Sanskrit name
satta-gidhya means 7 rivers) but the description fits (the indus rushes
out of narrow rocky mountain gorges at great speed) and the Pasthuns
were bounded by the river which used to defined the ancient borders of
Afghanistan.
>
> the daughter of the last king of judah (or israel?)
> took a stone from the throne as she fled across the mediterrean
> and through the pillars of hercules on her way to britain
> to join the other exiles of israel
> and that stone became the blarney stone of legend
>
> this theory is called british israelism or british identity
> a delightful and tolerant english eccentricity
>
I've read this, but I don't think it's the final answer yet. Maybe
there were some Jews who went to Britain, ... (obviously). But the
whole nation is not of the lost tribes. Probably a few lines of descent
among certain elites link back to the Lost tribes, but not large
segments of the population.
Does anyone have any more to add to this please?
Hasan
Jette Goldie
"coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges" <mair_...@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:mair_fheal-17...@c120.ppp.tsoft.com...
> > Wasn't there a secret army of Scottish Jews called Hagganah?
>
> possibly
>
> the lost ten tribes of israel migrated from babylon
> across the europe to the british isle
> (the tribe of dan gave its name to the danube)
>
> the daughter of the last king of judah (or israel?)
> took a stone from the throne as she fled across the mediterrean
> and through the pillars of hercules on her way to britain
> to join the other exiles of israel
> and that stone became the blarney stone of legend
the "Stone of Destiny" (aka "Stone of Scone") which was
traditionally the "king-making" (coronation) stone of Scotland
also claims that history (the Princess's name was reputed to
be "Scottii" - giving her name to the tribe of Irish Gaels who
moved to Alba and eventually gave their name to the whole
country).
This is the stone stolen from the Abbey at Scone by Edward I
("Hammer of the Scots") and for 800 years housed in Westminster
in a special compartment of the throne used to crown English
(and later United Kingdom) monarchs. This stone was briefly
*liberated* from Westminster in December 1950, brought back
to Scotland and hidden here until it was returned (voluntarily) to
London in Feb 1952, and finally returned to Scotland with a great
deal of ceremony on St. Andrew's Day 1998.
(dunno why Eddie had to have our stone - he had a perfectly
good Saxon "kingmaking" stone sitting in a churchyard in
Kingston-on-Thames..... now currently still exposed to all
the elements and uncared for)