Who in history or in contemporary life.....
Heidi Graw
I received a suggestion from a friend for a topic to put up for discussion.
It is:
"Who in history or in contemporary life would you
most like to sit and have a conversation with ?"
....and, my addition, "Why?"
I think this is a great question. Unfortunately, I don't have someone in
mind that I can think of at this moment. Well, actually, there are too many
and I can't make up my mind which one to pick. LOL. Maybe someone else
can start us off.
Any takers?
Heidi
root
news:a2ljet$123vkn$1...@ID-127517.news.dfncis.de...
I think it would have to be one of the great Greek philosophers, Aristotle,
Socrates or Archimedes. because I think that they would be really
interesting people to talk to, and then we could go out on the town and get
drunk together - I think that would be fun.
If it were possible, I would like to go back and talk to myself at the age
of 16, give myself the benefit of my experience of life up until now.
golwg
root
Dirk Schmitt
Steve McNallen... Why?... well, everything I have read or heard about the man makes him someone I could happily sit down and
converse over a couple of horns with.
Ver Thu Heill!
Sem Aušnar - Eigi Eru Enn Allir Jomsvikingar Daušir
Est Sularis Oth Mithas
Ulfrikr inn Hrafn
Dirk Schmitt
Standard Bearer - Assembly of Elder Troth - http://www.homepages.ihug.com.au/~peloquin/index.html
"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:a2ljet$123vkn$1...@ID-127517.news.dfncis.de...
Dirk Bruere
>
> I received a suggestion from a friend for a topic to put up for
discussion.
> It is:
>
> "Who in history or in contemporary life would you
> most like to sit and have a conversation with ?"
>
> ....and, my addition, "Why?"
Nobody particularly in contemporary life, otherwise I'd seek them out and do
it.
As for historically (ignoring langauge problems) I'd choose Mohammed and
Hitler (circa 1936) mainly because they are the two people who have almost
single handedly created the modern world.
I'd like to find out what they were 'really' like.
FFF
Dirk
bowman
"Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a2mcpd$11gf7b$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
>
> As for historically (ignoring langauge problems) I'd choose Mohammed and
> Hitler (circa 1936) mainly because they are the two people who have almost
> single handedly created the modern world.
I, too, would go with Adolph Hitler. If nothing else, he is one of the few
people I can think of who wrote a book at a low point in life, got out of
prison, gained power, and did not significantly deviate from his stated
beliefs and goals. A switch from the usual chameleons that wind up in power
by promising anything the masses want to hear and doing whatever they damn
well please once the votes are counted.
Dirk Bruere
"bowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:sRz38.6$mo2....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> > As for historically (ignoring langauge problems) I'd choose Mohammed and
> > Hitler (circa 1936) mainly because they are the two people who have
almost
> > single handedly created the modern world.
>
> I, too, would go with Adolph Hitler. If nothing else, he is one of the few
> people I can think of who wrote a book at a low point in life, got out of
> prison, gained power, and did not significantly deviate from his stated
> beliefs and goals. A switch from the usual chameleons that wind up in
power
> by promising anything the masses want to hear and doing whatever they damn
> well please once the votes are counted.
They are also the only two that I know of who started an 'nobodies' and
created an idea that they took to empire.
However, I'd say that Hitler was more an opportunist and it was largely
coincidence that opportunity lay in the direction of his original thoughts.
FFF
Dirk
Kavar Odisulf
getting wasted. I swear he's my Idol ;)
__
Kavar
Heidi Graw
I came up with someone I'd want to interview and that would be the Rabbi
Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary. ;-) He's still one of the most
contraversial figure around. I would love to know what he thinks of himself
having been deified. I'd want to know what he thinks about all those wars,
the violence and the persecutions fought in his name. Is that really what
he had in mind? And was he married to Mary Magdalene? Did he have children
of his own? Did he really die, or was a just a political/religious ploy?
Was he whisked away from the tomb to continue to live out his natural life
elsewhere? I'd want to take him on a tour to show him how his followers
revere instruments of death and torture - the cross. I'd want him to hear
the bullshit sermons that are preached on his behalf. Then I'd sit him
down and talk about the Eddas and the Sagas. ;-)
Take care,
Heidi
Manny Olds
> "Who in history or in contemporary life would you
> most like to sit and have a conversation with ?"
Do I get a Universal Translator?
--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"There is no limit to how complicated things can get, on account of one
thing always leading to another." -- E.B. White
Ljóssálfr
> Heidi Graw <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > "Who in history or in contemporary life would you
> > most like to sit and have a conversation with ?"
>
> Do I get a Universal Translator?
What? Babel Fish isn't good enough for you?
Shamash.
DaRC
Julius Caesar would have to there - just as the man who had visited
more of the ancient world than most = the Celtic lands, Greece, Egypt
under the Ptolemies etc... He is the man from whom we get Imperial
God Cult that, arguably, transformed early Christianity and the Romans
provide the model for the western world.
The next would be a close run thing between Machiavelli and Leonardo
da Vinci to do with their understanding of the Renaissance.
The final one would be the Mogul King Ashoka (I think he's the one)
but the one under which Sufism developed.
Cheers, Dave/
Dirk Bruere
"DaRC" <Darc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b4049d4.02012...@posting.google.com...
>
> The final one would be the Mogul King Ashoka (I think he's the one)
> but the one under which Sufism developed.
Which reminds me...
The Buddha would also be on my list.
FFF
Dirk
Scott Lowther
>
> Hi All,
>
> I received a suggestion from a friend for a topic to put up for discussion.
> It is:
>
> "Who in history or in contemporary life would you
> most like to sit and have a conversation with ?"
That's easy. Olaf Trygvasson. "Howdy, Olaf. I'm sne tby the Gods. Ever
see one of these before? It's called a 'shotgun',"
BABLAM!
Rune Bjørnsen
> That's easy. Olaf Trygvasson. "Howdy, Olaf. I'm sne tby the Gods. Ever
> see one of these before? It's called a 'shotgun',"
> BABLAM!
I would really like to have a chat with my hero, Tore Hund. He was the one
that speared Olav Haraldson at the battle of Stiklestad in 1030....the dude
came from my hometown after all :-)
Rune
Grimnir
Believe it or not, that was one of my first inclinations. Then I thought
I'd like to meet my patralineal ancestor from about 8000 BCE. Then there
was The Second Lord Christopher Hatton. I'd ask him who his mother really
was. The first Hatto von Reichenau and ask if he really was Saint
Perminius. Then there was Óðin (if there really was such a man as Snorri
described). But here's my choice. Snorri Sturluson. I'd ask him if he
really considered himself to be Christian.
--
Með frjálsu, Steven
What is Truth? Truth is something so noble that if God could turn aside
from Truth I could keep to the Truth and leave God. - Meister Eckhart
Heidi Graw
>"Grimnir" <valf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tcu48.1102$pb....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
(snip)
> Believe it or not, that was one of my first inclinations. Then I thought
> I'd like to meet my patralineal ancestor from about 8000 BCE.
They dug up mine in Heidelberg. He's about 400,000 years old. Prior to
that, though, my ancestral patriarch was swimming around in the ocean. I
think he may have been of the race called stromatolites. ;-)
Take care,
Heidi
Grimnir
>
>>"Grimnir" <valf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tcu48.1102$pb....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> (snip)
>
>> Believe it or not, that was one of my first inclinations. Then I thought
>> I'd like to meet my patralineal ancestor from about 8000 BCE.
>
> They dug up mine in Heidelberg. He's about 400,000 years old.
If you insist.
> Prior to
> that, though, my ancestral patriarch was swimming around in the ocean. I
> think he may have been of the race called stromatolites. ;-)
Oh I guess we *are* related after all. {:-)>
> Take care,
> Heidi
Heidi Graw
> >Heidi Graw wrote:
>
> >
> >>"Grimnir" <valf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:tcu48.1102$pb....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > (snip)
> >> Believe it or not, that was one of my first inclinations. Then I
thought
> >> I'd like to meet my patralineal ancestor from about 8000 BCE.
> > Heidi wrote:
> > They dug up mine in Heidelberg. He's about 400,000 years old.
> Steven wrote:
> If you insist.
Well, why not? It can't be proved either way. ;-)
>>Heidi wrote:
> > Prior to
> > that, though, my ancestral patriarch was swimming around in the ocean.
I
> > think he may have been of the race called stromatolites. ;-)
> Steven wrote:
> Oh I guess we *are* related after all. {:-)>
Now, there's a scary thought. ;-) But, consider for a moment that only 3%
of human DNA differenciates the 6 billion people here on Earth. Imagine
taking a 100 word essay and changing only 3 words. How much difference
could one find in such a minutely altered essay? Not a heck of a lot! I'd
stand accused of plagerism if I were to take someone else's work and only
change 3 of those words.
Take care,
Heidi
Dirk Bruere
>
> Now, there's a scary thought. ;-) But, consider for a moment that only
3%
> of human DNA differenciates the 6 billion people here on Earth. Imagine
> taking a 100 word essay and changing only 3 words. How much difference
> could one find in such a minutely altered essay? Not a heck of a lot!
I'd
> stand accused of plagerism if I were to take someone else's work and only
> change 3 of those words.
About 2% differentiates us from chimps, so you are talking about 3% of that
2%.
FFF
Dirk
Heidi Graw
(snip)
> About 2% differentiates us from chimps, so you are talking about 3% of
that
> 2%.
Hmm....this is how I understand it:
At the 97th - 100th percentile - human. The 3% is the differentiation we
find among 6 billion people.
At the 95th - ape
At the 45th - wheat.
Both human and ape share up to the 45th percentile their DNA with wheat.
Does that sound about right?
Take care,
Heidi
Al Wolf
>
> >"Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a2vct5$143cfi$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
> (snip)
>
> > About 2% differentiates us from chimps, so you are talking about 3% of
> that
> > 2%.
>
> Hmm....this is how I understand it:
>
> At the 97th - 100th percentile - human. The 3% is the differentiation we
> find among 6 billion people.
> At the 95th - ape
> At the 45th - wheat.
>
about 3% and the diferance between any given human and chimp is about 2%.
Grimnir
>
>>"Grimnir" <valf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7Pv48.1109$pb....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> >Heidi Graw wrote:
>> Steven wrote:
>> If you insist.
>
> Well, why not? It can't be proved either way. ;-)
In such subjects 'proof' is often in terms of degree. Unlike subjects such
as classical and neo-classical dynamics (my term) theories are proved
mathematically on the basis of the axioms. When the results of these
derivations are tested by experiment it is not the theory which is tested,
but the axioms upon which it is founded. In fields such as linguistics or
archeology, there is much more speculation involved in piecing together
the evidence, so the concept of 'proof' is very different than in physics,
or even chemistry.
>>>Heidi wrote:
>> > Prior to
>> > that, though, my ancestral patriarch was swimming around in the ocean.
> I
>> > think he may have been of the race called stromatolites. ;-)
>
>> Steven wrote:
>> Oh I guess we *are* related after all. {:-)>
>
> Now, there's a scary thought. ;-) But, consider for a moment that only
> 3%
> of human DNA differenciates the 6 billion people here on Earth. Imagine
> taking a 100 word essay and changing only 3 words.
My understanding is that we share something like 98% of our DNA with the
chimpanzee.
> How much difference
> could one find in such a minutely altered essay? Not a heck of a lot!
> I'd stand accused of plagerism if I were to take someone else's work and
> only change 3 of those words.
I think a better analogy would be to compare two airplanes which differed
in 3% (your number) of their design specifications. Varying just one
number could make the difference between the craft being flight worthy or
not.
Heidi Graw
>"Al Wolf" <wo...@awolfonline.com> wrote in message
news:GBI48.4188$gd.8...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com...
(snip)
> >Heidi wrote:
> > Hmm....this is how I understand it:
> >
> > At the 97th - 100th percentile - human. The 3% is the differentiation we
> > find among 6 billion people.
> > At the 95th - ape
> > At the 45th - wheat.
> >
>Al wrote:
> As I understood it, the difference between the most different of humans is
> about 3% and the diferance between any given human and chimp is about 2%.
So, there is the possibility that ape features could overlap into the 98th
percentile. No wonder quite a few people look and act like apes! ;-)
Take care,
Heidi
>
>
Heidi Graw
(snip)
> I think a better analogy would be to compare two airplanes which differed
> in 3% (your number) of their design specifications. Varying just one
> number could make the difference between the craft being flight worthy or
> not.
...or even faster. ;-)
Take care,
Heidi
Al Wolf
between humans and chimps (but not other apes), chimps are popular in
medical research because the same strains of diseases and such affect both
humans and chimps. Human HIV will infect a chimp, but not any other kind of
animal (with out mutation).
Grimnir
And irradiating your reproductive organs will lead to a higher rate of
mutation which will in some rare cases lead to favorable outcome. The
forces of natural selection are cruel and brutal. The kinds of
disfigurements which can arise from incompatible phenotypes can destroy a
person's life.
Tina LeBouthillier
> Hi All,
>
> I received a suggestion from a friend for a topic to put up for discussion.
> It is:
>
> "Who in history or in contemporary life would you
> most like to sit and have a conversation with ?"
>
> ....and, my addition, "Why?"
>
> I think this is a great question. Unfortunately, I don't have someone in
> mind that I can think of at this moment. Well, actually, there are too many
> and I can't make up my mind which one to pick. LOL. Maybe someone else
> can start us off.
>
> Any takers?
>
Hi Heidi,
My choice would be Ieyasu Tokugawa, who, around 1600, ended a hundred
years of civil war in Japan, united the country, became the first
Shogun over the whole country, and ushered in 250 years of peace .
Second choice would be Thomas
Paine. With him being a Deist, it would be interesting to see what he
would
think about Asatru. The husband chooses Thomas Edison !
In Frith, Tina
Heidi Graw
>"Tina LeBouthillier" <tina...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bb4286c.0201...@posting.google.com...
(snip)
> Hi Heidi,
> My choice would be Ieyasu Tokugawa, who, around 1600, ended a hundred
> years of civil war in Japan, united the country, became the first
> Shogun over the whole country, and ushered in 250 years of peace .
I haven't read all that much about Japan. Although, I have gathered some
general impressions that I find both interesting and disturbing. I
certainly like their art, some aspects of their culture and their overall
graciousness. Years ago I watched the TV series "Shogun." I had to cover
my eyes for most of it. I've got the book sitting on my shelves, but I'm
too scared to read it. LOL. ;-)
Take care,
Heidi