Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: square meters Re: Olympic question(s)
156 views
Skip to first unread message
Jerry Friedman
Oct 14, 2012, 1:22:53 AM10/14/12
to
On Oct 13, 9:57 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > On Oct 12, 6:40 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >> > And technically, as he noted, you "become bar mitzvah" on your
> >> > 13th birthday whether you've had the ceremony and the presents or
> >> > not.
>
> >> What if you were on a ship, and you crossed the International Date
> >> Line ...? (With apologies to George Carlin.)
>
> > The moment 13 years after your birth only occurs once, whatever you
> > call it.
>
> The moment, sure, but the day can happen more than once. Indeed, if
> there is a moment Talmudically recognized, it's probably the sundown
> (where you are) leading into the anniversary of your birth,...
That,
http://www.barmitzva.org/Barmitzva/life.html
or the following sundown.
http://www.soferstam.co.il/content.aspx?PageId=65&lang=en
Suprisingly enough, there seem to be two opinions about what the
Talmudic phrase "thirteen years and one day" means. I found a Web
site that went into detail about how the first commandment a bar
mitzvah performs is saying the Shema at the sundown that ends his
thirteenth birthday, but I can't find it now.
--
Jerry Friedman
wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > On Oct 12, 6:40 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >> > And technically, as he noted, you "become bar mitzvah" on your
> >> > 13th birthday whether you've had the ceremony and the presents or
> >> > not.
>
> >> What if you were on a ship, and you crossed the International Date
> >> Line ...? (With apologies to George Carlin.)
>
> > The moment 13 years after your birth only occurs once, whatever you
> > call it.
>
> The moment, sure, but the day can happen more than once. Indeed, if
> there is a moment Talmudically recognized, it's probably the sundown
> (where you are) leading into the anniversary of your birth,...
That,
http://www.barmitzva.org/Barmitzva/life.html
or the following sundown.
http://www.soferstam.co.il/content.aspx?PageId=65&lang=en
Suprisingly enough, there seem to be two opinions about what the
Talmudic phrase "thirteen years and one day" means. I found a Web
site that went into detail about how the first commandment a bar
mitzvah performs is saying the Shema at the sundown that ends his
thirteenth birthday, but I can't find it now.
--
Jerry Friedman
Yusuf B Gursey
Oct 14, 2012, 1:45:33 AM10/14/12
to
and that should be his 13th birthday in the Jewish calendar and the
next day would start at the sundown of that. but people aren't always
logical.
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Oct 14, 2012, 2:00:04 AM10/14/12
to
Robert Bannister wrote:
>
> But why aren't Floridans taller than average?
>
Because of all those short retired New York Jews living in Florida.
In Miami, their average height of 5'2" (157.48 cm) makes you feel like a
Dinka among Pygmies.
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
>
> But why aren't Floridans taller than average?
>
Because of all those short retired New York Jews living in Florida.
In Miami, their average height of 5'2" (157.48 cm) makes you feel like a
Dinka among Pygmies.
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
Guy Barry
Oct 14, 2012, 2:22:47 AM10/14/12
to
"Robin Bignall" wrote in message
news:43fj78ddfkdv7g5vi...@4ax.com...
> So bath water is from Bath? No wonder mine takes a long time to fill.
> Next week, gripe water.
I have drunk some of the water from the hot springs here in Bath (as the
result of an ancient statute, residents are entitled to one free glass a
day). It tastes as though someone's had a bath in it.
--
Guy Barry
R H Draney
Oct 14, 2012, 2:43:05 AM10/14/12
to
Peter Moylan filted:
>
>On 14/10/12 10:58, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 14/10/12 7:26 AM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:08:03 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>>> <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I don't know what you mean by "gravity works slower" but the net
>>>> gravitional acceleration is less near the Equator due to the increased
>>>> centrifugal force and also the bulge of the Earth. that's why Florida
>>>> has been chosen for space launches.
>>>
>>> The tangential speed of the surface of the Earth is also a help.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_of_the_Earth#Angular_speed
>>>
>>> ...the Kennedy Space Center is located at 28.59° North latitude,
>>> which yields a speed of: ... 1,470.23 kilometres per hour (913.56
>>> mph)
>feet are lower than average.
Okay, then why is Florida itself so much lower than all the other states?...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>On 14/10/12 10:58, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 14/10/12 7:26 AM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:08:03 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>>> <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I don't know what you mean by "gravity works slower" but the net
>>>> gravitional acceleration is less near the Equator due to the increased
>>>> centrifugal force and also the bulge of the Earth. that's why Florida
>>>> has been chosen for space launches.
>>>
>>> The tangential speed of the surface of the Earth is also a help.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_of_the_Earth#Angular_speed
>>>
>>> ...the Kennedy Space Center is located at 28.59° North latitude,
>>> which yields a speed of: ... 1,470.23 kilometres per hour (913.56
>>> mph)
>>>
>>
>> But why aren't Floridans taller than average?
>>
>Perhaps they are; but the low elevation of that state means that their
>>
>> But why aren't Floridans taller than average?
>>
>feet are lower than average.
Okay, then why is Florida itself so much lower than all the other states?...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
R H Draney
Oct 14, 2012, 2:46:20 AM10/14/12
to
Robert Bannister filted:
>
>On 13/10/12 12:30 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> [a.u.e only]
>>
>> "Robert Bannister" wrote in message
>> news:adrmdr...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> On the other hand, we have a large number of expressions (bone the
>>> chicken, stone the cherries) that look like the opposite of what they
>>> mean and yet the dopey public don't go round inserting bones or
>>> throwing stones at their food, so I find it hard to believe that
>>> anyone really made a mistake over "inflammable".
>>
>> Once "flammable" became current, I'd have thought it was extremely easy
>> to make a mistake over "inflammable".
>>
>
>Indeed. I blame the flamens.
>(flamina? flamingoes?)
The Flemish....r
>
>On 13/10/12 12:30 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> [a.u.e only]
>>
>> "Robert Bannister" wrote in message
>> news:adrmdr...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> On the other hand, we have a large number of expressions (bone the
>>> chicken, stone the cherries) that look like the opposite of what they
>>> mean and yet the dopey public don't go round inserting bones or
>>> throwing stones at their food, so I find it hard to believe that
>>> anyone really made a mistake over "inflammable".
>>
>> Once "flammable" became current, I'd have thought it was extremely easy
>> to make a mistake over "inflammable".
>>
>
>Indeed. I blame the flamens.
>(flamina? flamingoes?)
The Flemish....r
R H Draney
Oct 14, 2012, 2:55:07 AM10/14/12
to
Robert Bannister filted:
>
>On 14/10/12 7:45 AM, R H Draney wrote:
>>
>>Does this make "Badwater" (the pond at the very lowest point of Death Valley) a
>> Torpenhow?...r
>>
>>
>
>All baths use bathwater. The various colours are attributed to the
>people who get in the bath. Bad people will make bad water in the bath.
Ah, but not all baths *do* use water...I've seen rabbits, birds and elephants
take "dust baths", and there's already a branch of this thread dealing with
"sunbathing"....r
>
>On 14/10/12 7:45 AM, R H Draney wrote:
>>
>>Does this make "Badwater" (the pond at the very lowest point of Death Valley) a
>> Torpenhow?...r
>>
>>
>
>All baths use bathwater. The various colours are attributed to the
>people who get in the bath. Bad people will make bad water in the bath.
Ah, but not all baths *do* use water...I've seen rabbits, birds and elephants
take "dust baths", and there's already a branch of this thread dealing with
"sunbathing"....r
tony cooper
Oct 14, 2012, 3:03:09 AM10/14/12
to
On 13 Oct 2012 23:55:07 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
wrote:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Miscellanea/i-8CdxhpR/0/X2/2012-04-05-109-X2.jpg
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
wrote:
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
R H Draney
Oct 14, 2012, 3:04:24 AM10/14/12
to
Peter T. Daniels filted:
>
>On Oct 13, 8:08=A0pm, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>> Meh...I'm not impressed with the cosmopolitanity of New York after readin=
>g an
>> article on how scientists were exploring the possibility of using rabbits=
> for
>> food....
>
>? What does that have to do with New York?
The article was distributed by a New York-based press syndicate....r
>
>On Oct 13, 8:08=A0pm, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>> Meh...I'm not impressed with the cosmopolitanity of New York after readin=
>g an
>> article on how scientists were exploring the possibility of using rabbits=
> for
>> food....
>
>? What does that have to do with New York?
The article was distributed by a New York-based press syndicate....r
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oct 14, 2012, 3:16:57 AM10/14/12
to
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:
> On Oct 13, 7:37 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
>> > On Oct 13, 3:08 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> There's a perceived split between the Orthodox and the others, but
>> >> among the other movements, it's mainly a matter of what makes you feel
>> >> comfortable, and you don't hear a lot of people say "They're doing it
>> >> wrong".
>>
>> > Are extreme Hasidim found nowhere outside Brooklyn and Jerusalem?
>>
>> There are Hasids elsewhere, but not, as far as I know, as majorities
>> in geographic communities.
>>
>> > Is that not a splintering within Orthodox?
>>
>> Not really. It's more of a difference in emphasis, the Hasids
>> being more into the mystical elements of the religion and notions
>> of an omnipresent God. From an outsider's perspective, it's always
>> struck me that while both Hasidic and non-Hasidic Orthodox Jews
>> consider it an honor to keep the commandments, the Hasidic are more
>> likely to see it as a pleasure rather than a chore. But while
>> Hasidic Jews may see other Jews as missing a lot of the fun (and
>> some of the point) and others may seem them as a bit looney, I
>> don't think there's any real sense that either thinks that the
>> other is doing something they're not supposed to or not doing
>> something that's required.
>>
>> In any case, though, the Bal Shem Tov was an eighteenth-century
>> Ukrainian Jew, so it wouldn't really address the question of
>> whether American Jews had a tendency to split. The Hasidic
>> elements were brought to the United States from Europe.
>
> ?? Every block holds the worshippers of a different rebbe. How many
> of them claim that theirs is the Messiah?
I doubt that you'd get many of them to describe their relationship
with their rebbe as "worshipping them". (If you just meant
"worshippers of God who follow different rebbes", there's nothing
unusual about that.)
And there's nothing I can think of that rules out followers of
different leaders from each suspecting that their leader is the
messiah, as long as they accept the possibility that they might be
wrong. Until he does the things the messiah is supposed to do (and
doesn't do things the messiah isn't supposed to do, like die first),
you can't be sure. And, of course, from a Jewish point of view, even
the messiah isn't really someone to be worshipped. That would be
sacriligeous. It's not like he's God.
In any case, I didn't think that any of them made that claim since
Schneerson died. I will grant, however, that those of his followers
who still hold him to be the messiah after his death could reasonably
be considered to have split off to form a doctrinally different form
of Judaism.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |So when can we quit passing laws and
SF Bay Area (1982-) |raising taxes? When can we say of
Chicago (1964-1982) |our political system, "Stick a fork
|in it, it's done?"
evan.kir...@gmail.com | P.J. O'Rourke
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
> On Oct 13, 7:37 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
>> > On Oct 13, 3:08 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> There's a perceived split between the Orthodox and the others, but
>> >> among the other movements, it's mainly a matter of what makes you feel
>> >> comfortable, and you don't hear a lot of people say "They're doing it
>> >> wrong".
>>
>> > Are extreme Hasidim found nowhere outside Brooklyn and Jerusalem?
>>
>> There are Hasids elsewhere, but not, as far as I know, as majorities
>> in geographic communities.
>>
>> > Is that not a splintering within Orthodox?
>>
>> Not really. It's more of a difference in emphasis, the Hasids
>> being more into the mystical elements of the religion and notions
>> of an omnipresent God. From an outsider's perspective, it's always
>> struck me that while both Hasidic and non-Hasidic Orthodox Jews
>> consider it an honor to keep the commandments, the Hasidic are more
>> likely to see it as a pleasure rather than a chore. But while
>> Hasidic Jews may see other Jews as missing a lot of the fun (and
>> some of the point) and others may seem them as a bit looney, I
>> don't think there's any real sense that either thinks that the
>> other is doing something they're not supposed to or not doing
>> something that's required.
>>
>> In any case, though, the Bal Shem Tov was an eighteenth-century
>> Ukrainian Jew, so it wouldn't really address the question of
>> whether American Jews had a tendency to split. The Hasidic
>> elements were brought to the United States from Europe.
>
> ?? Every block holds the worshippers of a different rebbe. How many
> of them claim that theirs is the Messiah?
I doubt that you'd get many of them to describe their relationship
with their rebbe as "worshipping them". (If you just meant
"worshippers of God who follow different rebbes", there's nothing
unusual about that.)
And there's nothing I can think of that rules out followers of
different leaders from each suspecting that their leader is the
messiah, as long as they accept the possibility that they might be
wrong. Until he does the things the messiah is supposed to do (and
doesn't do things the messiah isn't supposed to do, like die first),
you can't be sure. And, of course, from a Jewish point of view, even
the messiah isn't really someone to be worshipped. That would be
sacriligeous. It's not like he's God.
In any case, I didn't think that any of them made that claim since
Schneerson died. I will grant, however, that those of his followers
who still hold him to be the messiah after his death could reasonably
be considered to have split off to form a doctrinally different form
of Judaism.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |So when can we quit passing laws and
SF Bay Area (1982-) |raising taxes? When can we say of
Chicago (1964-1982) |our political system, "Stick a fork
|in it, it's done?"
evan.kir...@gmail.com | P.J. O'Rourke
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Guy Barry
Oct 14, 2012, 3:28:31 AM10/14/12
to
"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
> It suddenly struck me: I don't know the Latin word for "bath" - balneum,
> balineum, balnearium - they all look like words for "whale". What was the
> Roman name of the town?
Aquae Sulis, i.e. "the waters of Sulis". Sulis was a Celtic goddess who the
Romans identified with Minerva. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquae_Sulis
The name "Bath" obviously derives from the Roman Baths. The Latin word for
the Baths was "Thermae" (now used for the modern baths complex in Bath):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermae
--
Guy Barry
Snidely
Oct 14, 2012, 3:36:15 AM10/14/12
to
Mike L used his keyboard to write :
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:23:37 -0400, James Silverton
> <jim.si...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2012 4:59 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 4:40 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2012 8:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 11, 6:05 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> This is interesting. Is the word "unclean" used here because English
>>>>>> has no precise word for "ritually impure", or because Hebrew uses the
>>>>>> same word for both secular and religious uncleanness?
>>>>> Was there a concept of "dirtiness"? Bathing to get grime off is a
>>>>> fairly recent concept in much of the world,
>>>>
>>>> I would say bathing _regularly_ to get grime off
>>>> is a recent concept, not bathing itself.
>>>
>>> In England they call going swimming "bathing."
>>>
>>> (It survived in the US in "bathing beauties.")
>>>
>> From my childhood, in Britain, I remeber the term "swimming bath"
>> instead of "swimming pool". Don't the Germans call it a "Schwimbad" too?
>
> Yes. The plural "swimming baths" was probably the dominant form; I
> think that was because earlier ones had real bathrooms - I remember
> reading of a case in maybe the 'seventies in which a Council finally
> built an old man a bathroom at home because he was the last customer
> keeping the public bath open.
Going to take the waters at Bath? Or at Bad Wï¿œrishofen?
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:23:37 -0400, James Silverton
> <jim.si...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2012 4:59 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 4:40 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2012 8:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 11, 6:05 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> This is interesting. Is the word "unclean" used here because English
>>>>>> has no precise word for "ritually impure", or because Hebrew uses the
>>>>>> same word for both secular and religious uncleanness?
>>>>> Was there a concept of "dirtiness"? Bathing to get grime off is a
>>>>> fairly recent concept in much of the world,
>>>>
>>>> I would say bathing _regularly_ to get grime off
>>>> is a recent concept, not bathing itself.
>>>
>>> In England they call going swimming "bathing."
>>>
>>> (It survived in the US in "bathing beauties.")
>>>
>> From my childhood, in Britain, I remeber the term "swimming bath"
>> instead of "swimming pool". Don't the Germans call it a "Schwimbad" too?
>
> Yes. The plural "swimming baths" was probably the dominant form; I
> think that was because earlier ones had real bathrooms - I remember
> reading of a case in maybe the 'seventies in which a Council finally
> built an old man a bathroom at home because he was the last customer
> keeping the public bath open.
Going to take the waters at Bath? Or at Bad Wï¿œrishofen?
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
Guy Barry
Oct 14, 2012, 3:48:51 AM10/14/12
to
[a.u.e only]
"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
news:aduibq...@mid.individual.net...
> On the other hand, the strand in "Let's all go down the Strand (Have a
> banana)" is no longer near the river.
http://monologues.co.uk/musichall/Songs-L/Let-Go-Down-Strand.htm
The words "have a banana" weren't in the original lyrics, and yet you almost
never hear it performed without them. Where did they come from?
--
Guy Barry
"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
> On the other hand, the strand in "Let's all go down the Strand (Have a
> banana)" is no longer near the river.
http://monologues.co.uk/musichall/Songs-L/Let-Go-Down-Strand.htm
The words "have a banana" weren't in the original lyrics, and yet you almost
never hear it performed without them. Where did they come from?
--
Guy Barry
Yusuf B Gursey
Oct 14, 2012, 4:07:40 AM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 3:16 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
IIRC (some?) Lubovitchers think Lubovitch was (is) the Messiah (in
caps?) and believe tha the is actually not dead (some weird things to
explain away his death, I forgot what).
caps?) and believe tha the is actually not dead (some weird things to
explain away his death, I forgot what).
Guy Barry
Oct 14, 2012, 4:09:19 AM10/14/12
to
[a.u.e only]
"Peter Moylan" wrote in message
news:leCdneonM6R23efN...@westnet.com.au...
> On 14/10/12 10:58, Robert Bannister wrote:
> > But why aren't Floridans taller than average?
I thought it was "Floridians" (as with "Canadians" from "Canada"). Am I
wrong?
--
Guy Barry
"Peter Moylan" wrote in message
news:leCdneonM6R23efN...@westnet.com.au...
> On 14/10/12 10:58, Robert Bannister wrote:
> > But why aren't Floridans taller than average?
wrong?
--
Guy Barry
Yusuf B Gursey
Oct 14, 2012, 4:10:02 AM10/14/12
to
>
>
> > you can't be sure. And, of course, from a Jewish point of view, even
> > the messiah isn't really someone to be worshipped. That would be
> > sacriligeous. It's not like he's God.
>
> > In any case, I didn't think that any of them made that claim since
> > Schneerson died. I will grant, however, that those of his followers
> > who still hold him to be the messiah after his death could reasonably
Joachim Pense
Oct 14, 2012, 4:10:49 AM10/14/12
to
Am 14.10.2012 01:09, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
> On Oct 13, 5:08 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>> Am 13.10.2012 22:09, schrieb Adam Funk:
>>
>>> On 2012-10-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>>> Education! Everyone should learn the original languages!
>>
>>> All three? How's your Greek?
>>
>> Three?
>
> What have we been talking about in Daniel (and Ezra, and one verse in
> Jeremiah and two words in Genesis, or is it Exodus)?
>
I read that after I had posted that question. That there are Aramaic
parts in some of the books was news to me.
Joachim
> On Oct 13, 5:08 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>> Am 13.10.2012 22:09, schrieb Adam Funk:
>>
>>> On 2012-10-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>>> Education! Everyone should learn the original languages!
>>
>>> All three? How's your Greek?
>>
>> Three?
>
> What have we been talking about in Daniel (and Ezra, and one verse in
> Jeremiah and two words in Genesis, or is it Exodus)?
>
I read that after I had posted that question. That there are Aramaic
parts in some of the books was news to me.
Joachim
Yusuf B Gursey
Oct 14, 2012, 4:17:26 AM10/14/12
to
in Aramaic.
Joachim Pense
Oct 14, 2012, 4:43:16 AM10/14/12
to
hand-writing (i. e., the quotation) in Aramaic, or the narrative as well?
Joachim
Yusuf B Gursey
Oct 14, 2012, 4:53:55 AM10/14/12
to
> hand-writing (i. e., the quotation) in Aramaic, or the narrative as well?
>
narrative is the beginning of Daniel 5. it is a minor mystery as to
why the king couldn't understand it and had to call Daniel, as Aramaic
was current in the setting.
> Joachim
Trond Engen
Oct 14, 2012, 5:04:43 AM10/14/12
to
pauljk:
> Peter Duncanson [BrE]:
>
>> Yusuf B Gursey:
> boost of speed and consequently almost all satellites keep
> circumnavigating the earth from west to east.
Not all. And�ya Rocket Range at 69,3�N: <http://www.rocketrange.no/>
And it's even got a satellite (huh-huh) launch site almost 10� farther
north: <http://www.astronautix.com/sites/svalrak.htm>
--
Trond Engen
> Peter Duncanson [BrE]:
>
>> Yusuf B Gursey:
>>
>>> I don't know what you mean by "gravity works slower" but the net
>>> gravitional acceleration is less near the Equator due to the
>>> increased centrifugal force and also the bulge of the Earth. that's
>>> why Florida has been chosen for space launches.
>>
>> The tangential speed of the surface of the Earth is also a help.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_of_the_Earth#Angular_speed
>>
>> ...the Kennedy Space Center is located at 28.59� North latitude,
>> which yields a speed of: ... 1,470.23 kilometres per hour (913.56
>> mph)
>
> All space exploring nations take advantage of this free-of-charge
>>> I don't know what you mean by "gravity works slower" but the net
>>> gravitional acceleration is less near the Equator due to the
>>> increased centrifugal force and also the bulge of the Earth. that's
>>> why Florida has been chosen for space launches.
>>
>> The tangential speed of the surface of the Earth is also a help.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_of_the_Earth#Angular_speed
>>
>> ...the Kennedy Space Center is located at 28.59� North latitude,
>> which yields a speed of: ... 1,470.23 kilometres per hour (913.56
>> mph)
>
> boost of speed and consequently almost all satellites keep
> circumnavigating the earth from west to east.
Not all. And�ya Rocket Range at 69,3�N: <http://www.rocketrange.no/>
And it's even got a satellite (huh-huh) launch site almost 10� farther
north: <http://www.astronautix.com/sites/svalrak.htm>
--
Trond Engen
Trond Engen
Oct 14, 2012, 5:22:13 AM10/14/12
to
Robert Bannister:
> On 13/10/12 7:11 PM, Trond Engen wrote:
>
>> Joachim Pense:
>>
>> Like this: <http://www.touristik-engen.de/text.php?pos=|100&nav_id=100>.
>>
>> Note the name.
>
> They named the town after you?
Nah, we're cognates, not loans. But I was there with my family for a
week this summer. My children spent hours in that Schwimmbad.
Very nice place -- people, town and landscape -- but the expected
welcoming ceremony with the horn orchestra and the flower parade was
nowhere to be seen. Maybe I should have told I was coming.
--
Trond Engen
> On 13/10/12 7:11 PM, Trond Engen wrote:
>
>> Joachim Pense:
>>
>>> Am 13.10.2012 00:23, schrieb James Silverton:
>>>
>>>> From my childhood, in Britain, I remeber the term "swimming bath"
>>>> instead of "swimming pool". Don't the Germans call it a "Schwimbad"
>>>> too?
>>>
>>> Yes, they do.
>>> Am 13.10.2012 00:23, schrieb James Silverton:
>>>
>>>> From my childhood, in Britain, I remeber the term "swimming bath"
>>>> instead of "swimming pool". Don't the Germans call it a "Schwimbad"
>>>> too?
>>>
>>
>> Like this: <http://www.touristik-engen.de/text.php?pos=|100&nav_id=100>.
>>
>> Note the name.
>
> They named the town after you?
Nah, we're cognates, not loans. But I was there with my family for a
week this summer. My children spent hours in that Schwimmbad.
Very nice place -- people, town and landscape -- but the expected
welcoming ceremony with the horn orchestra and the flower parade was
nowhere to be seen. Maybe I should have told I was coming.
--
Trond Engen
Yusuf B Gursey
Oct 14, 2012, 5:57:10 AM10/14/12
to
besides, I think these are low orbit sattelites and rockets.
<<
Sounding rocket launch site, known to have been used for 41 launches
from 1997 to 2004, reaching up to 1108 kilometers altitude. This
launch site, on the arctic archipelago Svalbard, provides unique
conditions for rocket studies of the dayside polar cusp, cleft and
cap. The site is ideal for scientific exploration of the dayside
aurora and processes in the magnetospheric boundary laye
>>
> --
> Trond Engen
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Oct 14, 2012, 7:02:02 AM10/14/12
to
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 07:58:57 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 14/10/12 7:26 AM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:08:03 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>> <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 12, 5:09 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 14/10/12 7:26 AM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:08:03 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>> <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Oct 12, 9:36 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 05:36:58 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>
>>>>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 11, 5:30 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:09:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>>>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 11, 3:22 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 11, 9:55 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 11, 8:08 am, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gunpowder was used in Tudor burnings, though. At least one of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oxford Martyrs - Ridley, I think - had a bag of gunpowder placed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> around his neck by his brother. I'm not quite sure of the effect: I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't imagine a bag would explode, so perhaps it was a question of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> taking a few breaths of the fumes while trying not to notice the pain.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it explode?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because gunpowder does not explode unless strongly enclosed.
>>>>>>>>>>> It just deflagrates.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you suppose they didn't know that? Why would the bag (presumably
>>>>>>>>>> leather) not be fully packed and tightly tied?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I presume that the bag will go up in flames and not put pressure on
>>>>>>>>> the exploding gas.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Leather going up in flames before the powder explodes? When's the last
>>>>>>>> time you tried to burn a shoe?
>>>>
>>>>>>> I think there's something in that: after all, fireworks are made of
>>>>>>> cardboard. A leather one sounds feasible, as long as it had a fuse.
>>>>>>> But I'm still not sure precisely how it would cause death: I don't
>>>>>>> know how much bang you need to decapitate somebody, but I suppose
>>>>>>> quite a small charge would cut his throat.
>>>>
>>>>>> In the Tudors episode, it was a metal ball maybe an inch in diameter
>>>>>> and basically blew her head off. And we know from the spyglass episode
>>>>>> that their historical research was accurate to the last detail!
>>>>
>>>>>>> (In Libya one sometimes heard a bang and saw a splash down the bay.
>>>>>>> This was one of the local fishermen at work. It was unsurprising that
>>>>>>> he had one hand.)
>>>>
>>>>>> Surely one sees the splash and then hears the bang.
>>>>
>>>>> If you happen to be looking in the right direction. The splash
>>>>> presumably lasts for long enough for someone to hear the sound, look in
>>>>> that direction and see the splash.
>>>>
>>>> I find that rather hard to believe. Or gravity works slower out there?
>>>
>>> I don't know what you mean by "gravity works slower" but the net
>>> gravitional acceleration is less near the Equator due to the increased
>>> centrifugal force and also the bulge of the Earth. that's why Florida
>>> has been chosen for space launches.
>>
>> The tangential speed of the surface of the Earth is also a help.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_of_the_Earth#Angular_speed
>>
>> ...the Kennedy Space Center is located at 28.59� North latitude,
>> which yields a speed of: ... 1,470.23 kilometres per hour (913.56
>> mph)
>>
>
>>> I don't know what you mean by "gravity works slower" but the net
>>> gravitional acceleration is less near the Equator due to the increased
>>> centrifugal force and also the bulge of the Earth. that's why Florida
>>> has been chosen for space launches.
>>
>> The tangential speed of the surface of the Earth is also a help.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_of_the_Earth#Angular_speed
>>
>> ...the Kennedy Space Center is located at 28.59� North latitude,
>> which yields a speed of: ... 1,470.23 kilometres per hour (913.56
>> mph)
>>
>
>But why aren't Floridans taller than average?
The average height of Floridans is reduced by the presence of large
numbers of shrunken retirees from all over the US.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Oct 14, 2012, 7:10:59 AM10/14/12
to
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:05:02 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
<ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 13, 7:26�pm, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
>wrote:
>> The tangential speed of the surface of the Earth is also a help.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_of_the_Earth#Angular_speed
Indeed. The tangential speed at takeoff contributes to the eventual
orbital speed.
<ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 13, 7:26�pm, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
>wrote:
>>
>> � � ...the Kennedy Space Center is located at 28.59 North latitude,
>> � � which yields a speed of: ... 1,470.23 kilometres per hour (913.56
>> � � mph)
>>
>
>the gravitional force that must be overcome is in the radial direction.
>> � � ...the Kennedy Space Center is located at 28.59 North latitude,
>> � � which yields a speed of: ... 1,470.23 kilometres per hour (913.56
>> � � mph)
>>
>
Indeed. The tangential speed at takeoff contributes to the eventual
orbital speed.
Yusuf B Gursey
Oct 14, 2012, 7:48:27 AM10/14/12
to
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Oct 14, 2012, 7:50:34 AM10/14/12
to
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 20:28:15 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Oct 13, 9:28�pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> On 14/10/12 12:25 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> writes:
>>
>> >> On Oct 13, 1:47 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> there is lots of water, like the Amazon basin, bathe frequently.
>>
>> >>> On the other hand there was a while where, in Spain, bathing could
>> >>> get you in trouble with the Inquisition - because ritual baths were
>> >>> a Jewish custom.
>>
>> >> The early European visitors to Polynesia frequently remark on the fact
>> >> that the islanders bathed at least daily, sometimes more than once.
>> >> This was at a time when, I believe, bathing even once a week would
>> >> have been considered a bit peculiar in England. As you say, it has a
>> >> lot to do with access to lots of water,
>>
>> > Come on. �Do you mean to tell me that Londoners couldn't get down to
>> > the Thames to bathe if they wanted to? �(Not that it would have been
>> > all that healthy to do so or, frankly, likely to get you all that
>> > clean.)
>>
>> They might as well wash in the Fleet.
>
>Who, the sailors?
The sailors would need to disembark to get to the Fleet to wash.
They might attract the attention of newspaper reporters from nearby
Fleet Street.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Fleet
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Oct 13, 9:28�pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> On 14/10/12 12:25 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> writes:
>>
>> >> On Oct 13, 1:47 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Oct 12, 1:40 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> I would say bathing _regularly_ to get grime off
>> >>>> is a recent concept, not bathing itself.
>>
>> >>> Depends on your environment. �Most primitive people in places where
>>
>> >>>> I would say bathing _regularly_ to get grime off
>> >>>> is a recent concept, not bathing itself.
>>
>> >>> there is lots of water, like the Amazon basin, bathe frequently.
>>
>> >>> On the other hand there was a while where, in Spain, bathing could
>> >>> get you in trouble with the Inquisition - because ritual baths were
>> >>> a Jewish custom.
>>
>> >> The early European visitors to Polynesia frequently remark on the fact
>> >> that the islanders bathed at least daily, sometimes more than once.
>> >> This was at a time when, I believe, bathing even once a week would
>> >> have been considered a bit peculiar in England. As you say, it has a
>> >> lot to do with access to lots of water,
>>
>> > Come on. �Do you mean to tell me that Londoners couldn't get down to
>> > the Thames to bathe if they wanted to? �(Not that it would have been
>> > all that healthy to do so or, frankly, likely to get you all that
>> > clean.)
>>
>> They might as well wash in the Fleet.
>
>Who, the sailors?
The sailors would need to disembark to get to the Fleet to wash.
They might attract the attention of newspaper reporters from nearby
Fleet Street.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Fleet
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Oct 14, 2012, 7:56:26 AM10/14/12
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:12:01 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:44:12 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2012-10-11, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>
>>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
>>>> On 2012-10-10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>>>> to point to the text as it is being read. (One does not touch the
>>>>> Torah scroll -- it "profanes the hands," which have to be purified
>>>>> after doing so.) Presumably he is also prepared to murmur the
>>>>> correct pronunciation into the reader's ear as necessary.
>>>>
>>>> I don't get "profanes the hands"; I'd expect it to be the other way
>>>> around (the hands profane the scroll).
>>>
>>> Nope. "All the wholy writings render unclean the hands." [Yadayim
>>> 3.5] Note that it's only the text and the "margins" which have this
>>> property. The back of the scroll (the part exposed when it's rolled)
>>> is okay to touch, although most of the time the scroll is manipulated
>>> by its handles.
>>
>>
>>Interesting (& I read the link PTD provided). You can see why it
>>sounds strange to me, though?
>>
>>Normally X makes Y literally unclean only if X is already dirty, not
>>if X is better/purer than Y; & the usual meaning of "profane" (verb)
>>in English is something like "to misuse or defile [something sacred or
>>otherwise deserving reverence]".
>
>I hadn't come across this before.
>
>It's as though the sacred object has a protective coating of something
>that is dirty to humans and that what gets on to the human hand is not
>sacred substance but protective dirty substance.
A more prosaic interpretation is that underlying the requirement to wash
the hands after touching the text face of a scroll is that the text
should be kept clean and that the washing of the hands is a deterrent
penalty for doing something that should not be done.
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:44:12 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2012-10-11, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>
>>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
>>>> On 2012-10-10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>>>> to point to the text as it is being read. (One does not touch the
>>>>> Torah scroll -- it "profanes the hands," which have to be purified
>>>>> after doing so.) Presumably he is also prepared to murmur the
>>>>> correct pronunciation into the reader's ear as necessary.
>>>>
>>>> I don't get "profanes the hands"; I'd expect it to be the other way
>>>> around (the hands profane the scroll).
>>>
>>> Nope. "All the wholy writings render unclean the hands." [Yadayim
>>> 3.5] Note that it's only the text and the "margins" which have this
>>> property. The back of the scroll (the part exposed when it's rolled)
>>> is okay to touch, although most of the time the scroll is manipulated
>>> by its handles.
>>
>>
>>Interesting (& I read the link PTD provided). You can see why it
>>sounds strange to me, though?
>>
>>Normally X makes Y literally unclean only if X is already dirty, not
>>if X is better/purer than Y; & the usual meaning of "profane" (verb)
>>in English is something like "to misuse or defile [something sacred or
>>otherwise deserving reverence]".
>
>I hadn't come across this before.
>
>It's as though the sacred object has a protective coating of something
>that is dirty to humans and that what gets on to the human hand is not
>sacred substance but protective dirty substance.
A more prosaic interpretation is that underlying the requirement to wash
the hands after touching the text face of a scroll is that the text
should be kept clean and that the washing of the hands is a deterrent
penalty for doing something that should not be done.
CDB
Oct 14, 2012, 8:01:20 AM10/14/12
to
On 13/10/2012 8:07 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 13/10/12 12:30 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
> On 13/10/12 12:30 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> [a.u.e only]
>> "Robert Bannister" wrote in message
>> "Robert Bannister" wrote in message
>> news:adrmdr...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On the other hand, we have a large number of expressions (bone the
>>> chicken, stone the cherries) that look like the opposite of what they
>>> mean and yet the dopey public don't go round inserting bones or
>>> throwing stones at their food, so I find it hard to believe that
>>> anyone really made a mistake over "inflammable".
>> Once "flammable" became current, I'd have thought it was extremely easy
>> to make a mistake over "inflammable".
> Indeed. I blame the flamens.
> (flamina? flamingoes?)
(Willies?) Never looked that one up before. Interestingly, the word
>>> On the other hand, we have a large number of expressions (bone the
>>> chicken, stone the cherries) that look like the opposite of what they
>>> mean and yet the dopey public don't go round inserting bones or
>>> throwing stones at their food, so I find it hard to believe that
>>> anyone really made a mistake over "inflammable".
>> Once "flammable" became current, I'd have thought it was extremely easy
>> to make a mistake over "inflammable".
> Indeed. I blame the flamens.
> (flamina? flamingoes?)
also means a blast of wind, or the air that passes through a musical
instrument. Inflated with the Spirit.
pauljk
Oct 14, 2012, 9:03:23 AM10/14/12
to
"Yusuf B Gursey" <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4d8cb20-1d3f-44dd...@b15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 13, 7:26 pm, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:08:03 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 12, 5:09 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> On Oct 12, 9:36 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:08:03 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 12, 5:09 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> On Oct 12, 9:36 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
By far the major part of the rocket fuel is expended to achieve
necessary tangential speed to overcame gravitational force in
a steady orbital state. That's where the tangential speed of 1,470 km/h
already present at blast off point comes handy.
pjk
pauljk
Oct 14, 2012, 9:15:12 AM10/14/12
to
"Trond Engen" <tron...@engen.priv.no> wrote in message
news:k5dv54$coe$1...@dont-email.me...
> pauljk:
>
>> Peter Duncanson [BrE]:
>>
>>> Yusuf B Gursey:
>>>
>>>> I don't know what you mean by "gravity works slower" but the net
>>>> gravitional acceleration is less near the Equator due to the
>>>> increased centrifugal force and also the bulge of the Earth. that's
>>>> why Florida has been chosen for space launches.
>>>
>>> The tangential speed of the surface of the Earth is also a help.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_of_the_Earth#Angular_speed
>>>
>>> ...the Kennedy Space Center is located at 28.59° North latitude,
>>> which yields a speed of: ... 1,470.23 kilometres per hour (913.56
>>> mph)
>>
>> All space exploring nations take advantage of this free-of-charge
>> boost of speed and consequently almost all satellites keep
>> circumnavigating the earth from west to east.
>
> Not all.
Oh yes, I know. I was careful to say "almost all".
>
>> Peter Duncanson [BrE]:
>>
>>> Yusuf B Gursey:
>>>
>>>> I don't know what you mean by "gravity works slower" but the net
>>>> gravitional acceleration is less near the Equator due to the
>>>> increased centrifugal force and also the bulge of the Earth. that's
>>>> why Florida has been chosen for space launches.
>>>
>>> The tangential speed of the surface of the Earth is also a help.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_of_the_Earth#Angular_speed
>>>
>>> ...the Kennedy Space Center is located at 28.59° North latitude,
>>> which yields a speed of: ... 1,470.23 kilometres per hour (913.56
>>> mph)
>>
>> All space exploring nations take advantage of this free-of-charge
>> boost of speed and consequently almost all satellites keep
>> circumnavigating the earth from west to east.
>
> Not all.
> Andøya Rocket Range at 69,3°N: <http://www.rocketrange.no/>
>
> And it's even got a satellite (huh-huh) launch site almost 10° farther north:
> <http://www.astronautix.com/sites/svalrak.htm>
Well that makes sense, if you are launching counter-earth-rotational
> And it's even got a satellite (huh-huh) launch site almost 10° farther north:
> <http://www.astronautix.com/sites/svalrak.htm>
satellites you want to do it from a place as far away from the equator
as possible.
pjk
> Trond Engen
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 9:19:11 AM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 12:29 am, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why, Peter, my dear boy. I think that's the first time I've ever seen
> you admit a "mistake". Broke your cherry, you did.
> start.
Fuck off, asshole. Your failure to observe, recall, or understand my
postings is not my problem.
> Why, Peter, my dear boy. I think that's the first time I've ever seen
> you admit a "mistake". Broke your cherry, you did.
> start.
Fuck off, asshole. Your failure to observe, recall, or understand my
postings is not my problem.
Joachim Pense
Oct 14, 2012, 9:22:35 AM10/14/12
to
Am 14.10.2012 15:15, schrieb pauljk:
>
> Well that makes sense, if you are launching counter-earth-rotational
> satellites you want to do it from a place as far away from the equator
> as possible.
>
> pjk
>
>> Trond Engen
>
>
>
BTW: Are there Pole-to-pole-rotational satellites?
>
> Well that makes sense, if you are launching counter-earth-rotational
> satellites you want to do it from a place as far away from the equator
> as possible.
>
> pjk
>
>> Trond Engen
>
>
>
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 9:23:28 AM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 3:16 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
with their actual relationship.
> And there's nothing I can think of that rules out followers of
> different leaders from each suspecting that their leader is the
> messiah, as long as they accept the possibility that they might be
> wrong. Until he does the things the messiah is supposed to do (and
> doesn't do things the messiah isn't supposed to do, like die first),
> you can't be sure. And, of course, from a Jewish point of view, even
> the messiah isn't really someone to be worshipped. That would be
> sacriligeous. It's not like he's God.
You never heard about the financial and pedophile scandals that have
come to light in recent years?
> In any case, I didn't think that any of them made that claim since
> Schneerson died. I will grant, however, that those of his followers
> who still hold him to be the messiah after his death could reasonably
> be considered to have split off to form a doctrinally different form
> of Judaism.
Q.E.D.
wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
> > ?? Every block holds the worshippers of a different rebbe. How many
> > of them claim that theirs is the Messiah?
>
> I doubt that you'd get many of them to describe their relationship
> with their rebbe as "worshipping them". (If you just meant
> "worshippers of God who follow different rebbes", there's nothing
> unusual about that.)
How they "describe their relationship" need not have anything to do
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
> > ?? Every block holds the worshippers of a different rebbe. How many
> > of them claim that theirs is the Messiah?
>
> I doubt that you'd get many of them to describe their relationship
> with their rebbe as "worshipping them". (If you just meant
> "worshippers of God who follow different rebbes", there's nothing
> unusual about that.)
with their actual relationship.
> And there's nothing I can think of that rules out followers of
> different leaders from each suspecting that their leader is the
> messiah, as long as they accept the possibility that they might be
> wrong. Until he does the things the messiah is supposed to do (and
> doesn't do things the messiah isn't supposed to do, like die first),
> you can't be sure. And, of course, from a Jewish point of view, even
> the messiah isn't really someone to be worshipped. That would be
> sacriligeous. It's not like he's God.
come to light in recent years?
> In any case, I didn't think that any of them made that claim since
> Schneerson died. I will grant, however, that those of his followers
> who still hold him to be the messiah after his death could reasonably
> be considered to have split off to form a doctrinally different form
> of Judaism.
Yusuf B Gursey
Oct 14, 2012, 9:26:09 AM10/14/12
to
would be good place to launch them.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 9:27:16 AM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 7:56 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
But washing afterward doesn't help with the soiling problem.
Jewish blessings often _follow_, such as "grace after meals."
Jewish blessings often _follow_, such as "grace after meals."
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 9:29:12 AM10/14/12
to
undertake this war, a great empire will be destroyed." "Two minas, a
shekel and a half."
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 9:35:45 AM10/14/12
to
high-rez photogrammetry that was declassified a few years ago (the
super-hi-rez stuff apparently isn't available yet), not least because
they include views of the same areas several decades apart.
Trond Engen
Oct 14, 2012, 9:38:23 AM10/14/12
to
Joachim Pense:
> Am 14.10.2012 15:15, schrieb pauljk:
>
>> Well that makes sense, if you are launching counter-earth-rotational
>> satellites you want to do it from a place as far away from the equator
>> as possible.
>
earth are rotating pole to pole (or slightly off pole to offset the
orbit by some degrees).
--
Trond Engen
> Am 14.10.2012 15:15, schrieb pauljk:
>
>> Well that makes sense, if you are launching counter-earth-rotational
>> satellites you want to do it from a place as far away from the equator
>> as possible.
>
> BTW: Are there Pole-to-pole-rotational satellites?
Many satellites photographing or surveying the whole surface of the
earth are rotating pole to pole (or slightly off pole to offset the
orbit by some degrees).
--
Trond Engen
Jerry Friedman
Oct 14, 2012, 10:24:42 AM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 7:37 am, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
> Joachim Pense:
...
> > BTW: Are there Pole-to-pole-rotational satellites?
>
> Many satellites photographing or surveying the whole surface of the
> earth are rotating pole to pole (or slightly off pole to offset the
> orbit by some degrees).
I believe this started with military surveillance satellites. The two
big countries that wanted to watch each other extend(ed) quite far
north.
--
Jerry Friedman
> Joachim Pense:
...
> > BTW: Are there Pole-to-pole-rotational satellites?
>
> Many satellites photographing or surveying the whole surface of the
> earth are rotating pole to pole (or slightly off pole to offset the
> orbit by some degrees).
big countries that wanted to watch each other extend(ed) quite far
north.
--
Jerry Friedman
Whiskers
Oct 14, 2012, 10:27:59 AM10/14/12
to
On 2012-10-14, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> On 13/10/12 6:31 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 01:26:27 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>> <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 4:20 am, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12 Oct 2012 22:12:46 GMT, Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> American publishers aren't bound by the laws of the Church of
>>>>>> England.
>>>>>> (Perhaps that's why the Authorized Version isn't usually called that
>>>>>> over
>>>>>> there, as there is no-one to authorize it - or to regulate its
>>>>>> compliance
>>>>>> to any particular text).
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure that "Authorised Version" is in the official title of the
>>>>> so-called King James Bible.
>>>>
>>>> No, but until a couple of decades ago it was always referred to, when
>>>> needed, in the UK as the "Authorised Version". We seem to have adopted
>>>> "King James" from the US.
>>>>
>>>
>>> because in the US there is no sinlge dominant church to "authorise"
>>> it.
>>>
>> It was "authorised" or, more exactly, "appointed" to be used in the
>> Church of England at a particular time in history. The authorisation or
>> appointment does not apply to any other denominations in England. In
>> fact it does not apply in the Church of England today.
>
> Surely, back then, it was still the death penalty for using any text but
> the authorised one for religious purposes?
Once free of Rome, the Church of England accepted the use of English
instead of Latin, and the law of the land relaxed somewhat in matters of
religion. A text might not be authorised, but that didn't make it
forbidden - particularly if it had been licensed or permitted by an earlier
protestant monarch. Henry VIII before his split from the papacy, and Mary
I (Bloody Mary) when trying to re-establish Roman supremacy in England,
were the last to impose the death penalty on protestants who didn't use the
Latin Vulgate. By the time of King James I you could be fined for not
attending Sunday services of the state religion, but it took some special
effort to get the death penalty.
Ironically, when the Church of Rome decreed the use of the vernacular in
worship, in the 20th century, some Catholics defected to the Church of
England to join congregations that were still using Latin.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
> On 13/10/12 6:31 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 01:26:27 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>> <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 4:20 am, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12 Oct 2012 22:12:46 GMT, Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> American publishers aren't bound by the laws of the Church of
>>>>>> England.
>>>>>> (Perhaps that's why the Authorized Version isn't usually called that
>>>>>> over
>>>>>> there, as there is no-one to authorize it - or to regulate its
>>>>>> compliance
>>>>>> to any particular text).
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure that "Authorised Version" is in the official title of the
>>>>> so-called King James Bible.
>>>>
>>>> No, but until a couple of decades ago it was always referred to, when
>>>> needed, in the UK as the "Authorised Version". We seem to have adopted
>>>> "King James" from the US.
>>>>
>>>
>>> because in the US there is no sinlge dominant church to "authorise"
>>> it.
>>>
>> It was "authorised" or, more exactly, "appointed" to be used in the
>> Church of England at a particular time in history. The authorisation or
>> appointment does not apply to any other denominations in England. In
>> fact it does not apply in the Church of England today.
>
> Surely, back then, it was still the death penalty for using any text but
> the authorised one for religious purposes?
Once free of Rome, the Church of England accepted the use of English
instead of Latin, and the law of the land relaxed somewhat in matters of
religion. A text might not be authorised, but that didn't make it
forbidden - particularly if it had been licensed or permitted by an earlier
protestant monarch. Henry VIII before his split from the papacy, and Mary
I (Bloody Mary) when trying to re-establish Roman supremacy in England,
were the last to impose the death penalty on protestants who didn't use the
Latin Vulgate. By the time of King James I you could be fined for not
attending Sunday services of the state religion, but it took some special
effort to get the death penalty.
Ironically, when the Church of Rome decreed the use of the vernacular in
worship, in the 20th century, some Catholics defected to the Church of
England to join congregations that were still using Latin.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Trond Engen
Oct 14, 2012, 10:49:48 AM10/14/12
to
Jerry Friedman:
--
Trond Engen
>>> BTW: Are there Pole-to-pole-rotational satellites?
>>
>> Many satellites photographing or surveying the whole surface of the
>> earth are rotating pole to pole (or slightly off pole to offset the
>> orbit by some degrees).
>
> I believe this started with military surveillance satellites. The two
> big countries that wanted to watch each other extend(ed) quite far
> north.
Oh, yes. And the site at Andøya was partly funded by the US Air Force.
>>
>> Many satellites photographing or surveying the whole surface of the
>> earth are rotating pole to pole (or slightly off pole to offset the
>> orbit by some degrees).
>
> I believe this started with military surveillance satellites. The two
> big countries that wanted to watch each other extend(ed) quite far
> north.
--
Trond Engen
Whiskers
Oct 14, 2012, 10:49:03 AM10/14/12
to
extracting meaning from it. Daniel had established a reputation for
interpreting the dreams of the king's father. It may also be that only
Daniel had the courage to reveal the meaning, the other advisors fearing
the death penalty if they angered the king with their interpretations;
safer to claim ignorance than be too clever for their own good.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Oct 14, 2012, 11:20:41 AM10/14/12
to
"deterrent". The need to wash afterwards will deter people from touching
in the first place.
>Jewish blessings often _follow_, such as "grace after meals."
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oct 14, 2012, 11:31:30 AM10/14/12
to
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:
> On Oct 14, 3:16 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> > ?? Every block holds the worshippers of a different rebbe. How many
>> > of them claim that theirs is the Messiah?
>>
>> I doubt that you'd get many of them to describe their relationship
>> with their rebbe as "worshipping them". (If you just meant
>> "worshippers of God who follow different rebbes", there's nothing
>> unusual about that.)
>
> How they "describe their relationship" need not have anything to do
> with their actual relationship.
And what, specifically, do you see that justifies describing their
> On Oct 14, 3:16 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> > ?? Every block holds the worshippers of a different rebbe. How many
>> > of them claim that theirs is the Messiah?
>>
>> I doubt that you'd get many of them to describe their relationship
>> with their rebbe as "worshipping them". (If you just meant
>> "worshippers of God who follow different rebbes", there's nothing
>> unusual about that.)
>
> How they "describe their relationship" need not have anything to do
> with their actual relationship.
actual relationship as "worshipping them"?
>> And there's nothing I can think of that rules out followers of
>> different leaders from each suspecting that their leader is the
>> messiah, as long as they accept the possibility that they might be
>> wrong. Until he does the things the messiah is supposed to do (and
>> doesn't do things the messiah isn't supposed to do, like die first),
>> you can't be sure. And, of course, from a Jewish point of view, even
>> the messiah isn't really someone to be worshipped. That would be
>> sacriligeous. It's not like he's God.
>
> You never heard about the financial and pedophile scandals that have
> come to light in recent years?
it. What do financial and pedophile scandals have to do with whether
it's considered improper for different groups to suspect that
different people are the messiah? Or to the idea that the messiah
isn't someone to be worshipped?
>> In any case, I didn't think that any of them made that claim since
>> Schneerson died. I will grant, however, that those of his followers
>> who still hold him to be the messiah after his death could reasonably
>> be considered to have split off to form a doctrinally different form
>> of Judaism.
>
> Q.E.D.
international Chabad-Lubavitch movement, who died in 1994, is the
messiah demonstrates that Hasidim in every block worship a different
living rebbe?
Or just that actual splits among American Jews aren't completely
nonexistent?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |There is no such thing as bad data,
SF Bay Area (1982-) |only data from bad homes.
Chicago (1964-1982)
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Jerry Friedman
Oct 14, 2012, 11:32:43 AM10/14/12
to
On Oct 13, 11:45 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 1:22 am, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 13, 9:57 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> > > > On Oct 12, 6:40 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> > > >> > And technically, as he noted, you "become bar mitzvah" on your
> > > >> > 13th birthday whether you've had the ceremony and the presents or
> > > >> > not.
>
> > > >> What if you were on a ship, and you crossed the International Date
> > > >> Line ...? (With apologies to George Carlin.)
>
> > > > The moment 13 years after your birth only occurs once, whatever you
> > > > call it.
>
> > > The moment, sure, but the day can happen more than once. Indeed, if
> > > there is a moment Talmudically recognized, it's probably the sundown
> > > (where you are) leading into the anniversary of your birth,...
>
> > That,
>
> >http://www.barmitzva.org/Barmitzva/life.html
>
> > or the following sundown.
>
> >http://www.soferstam.co.il/content.aspx?PageId=65〈=en
>
> > Suprisingly enough, there seem to be two opinions about what the
> > Talmudic phrase "thirteen years and one day" means. I found a Web
> > site that went into detail about how the first commandment a bar
> > mitzvah performs is saying the Shema at the sundown that ends his
> > thirteenth birthday, but I can't find it now.
>
> logically the Talmud would prescribe according to the Jewish calendar,
> and that should be his 13th birthday in the Jewish calendar and the
> next day would start at the sundown of that. but people aren't always
> logical.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1048736/jewish/The-Laws-of-Bar-Mitzvah.htm
See especially footnote 9. You can decide for yourself whether the
argument is logical. The passage from the Talmud (about when a young
person's oath is considered binding as an adult's is, and the
possession of two pubic hairs, and things like that) is also available
on line.
--
Jerry Friedman
> On Oct 14, 1:22 am, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 13, 9:57 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> > > > On Oct 12, 6:40 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> > > >> > And technically, as he noted, you "become bar mitzvah" on your
> > > >> > 13th birthday whether you've had the ceremony and the presents or
> > > >> > not.
>
> > > >> What if you were on a ship, and you crossed the International Date
> > > >> Line ...? (With apologies to George Carlin.)
>
> > > > The moment 13 years after your birth only occurs once, whatever you
> > > > call it.
>
> > > The moment, sure, but the day can happen more than once. Indeed, if
> > > there is a moment Talmudically recognized, it's probably the sundown
> > > (where you are) leading into the anniversary of your birth,...
>
> > That,
>
> >http://www.barmitzva.org/Barmitzva/life.html
>
> > or the following sundown.
>
> >http://www.soferstam.co.il/content.aspx?PageId=65〈=en
>
> > Suprisingly enough, there seem to be two opinions about what the
> > Talmudic phrase "thirteen years and one day" means. I found a Web
> > site that went into detail about how the first commandment a bar
> > mitzvah performs is saying the Shema at the sundown that ends his
> > thirteenth birthday, but I can't find it now.
>
> logically the Talmud would prescribe according to the Jewish calendar,
> and that should be his 13th birthday in the Jewish calendar and the
> next day would start at the sundown of that. but people aren't always
> logical.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1048736/jewish/The-Laws-of-Bar-Mitzvah.htm
See especially footnote 9. You can decide for yourself whether the
argument is logical. The passage from the Talmud (about when a young
person's oath is considered binding as an adult's is, and the
possession of two pubic hairs, and things like that) is also available
on line.
--
Jerry Friedman
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oct 14, 2012, 11:41:34 AM10/14/12
to
Yusuf B Gursey <ygu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Oct 14, 4:07�am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 3:16�am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
>> caps?) and believe tha the is actually not dead (some weird things to
>> explain away his death, I forgot what).
>
> oh, maybe it was Schneerson (I didn't read the rest of your post).
It was. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Chabad-Lubavitch
movement, who died in 1994. I remember it being a controversy when he
died, as most (I believe) of the Lubavitchers decided, along with the
rest of the Jews that since he actually died he must not, in fact,
have been the messiah. (Something I don't believe he was ever
supposed to have claimed to have been, but nor did he vigorously
deny.)
"Lubavitch" was a reference to the Russian town where the movement was
based until 1940, when they left Europe to come to the US, not a person.
>> > you can't be sure. �And, of course, from a Jewish point of view, even
>> > the messiah isn't really someone to be worshipped. �That would be
>> > sacriligeous. �It's not like he's God.
>>
Most messianic Jews would probably capitalize it. I tend not to use
that sort of "reverential" capitalization.
>> > be considered to have split off to form a doctrinally different form
>> > of Judaism.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |If I may digress momentarily from
SF Bay Area (1982-) |the mainstream of this evening's
Chicago (1964-1982) |symposium, I'd like to sing a song
|which is completely pointless.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | Tom Lehrer
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
> On Oct 14, 4:07�am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 3:16�am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > And there's nothing I can think of that rules out followers of
>> > different leaders from each suspecting that their leader is the
>> > messiah, as long as they accept the possibility that they might be
>> > wrong. �Until he does the things the messiah is supposed to do (and
>> > doesn't do things the messiah isn't supposed to do, like die first),
>>
>> IIRC (some?) Lubovitchers think Lubovitch was (is) the Messiah (in
>>
>> > And there's nothing I can think of that rules out followers of
>> > different leaders from each suspecting that their leader is the
>> > messiah, as long as they accept the possibility that they might be
>> > wrong. �Until he does the things the messiah is supposed to do (and
>> > doesn't do things the messiah isn't supposed to do, like die first),
>>
>> caps?) and believe tha the is actually not dead (some weird things to
>> explain away his death, I forgot what).
>
> oh, maybe it was Schneerson (I didn't read the rest of your post).
It was. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Chabad-Lubavitch
movement, who died in 1994. I remember it being a controversy when he
died, as most (I believe) of the Lubavitchers decided, along with the
rest of the Jews that since he actually died he must not, in fact,
have been the messiah. (Something I don't believe he was ever
supposed to have claimed to have been, but nor did he vigorously
deny.)
"Lubavitch" was a reference to the Russian town where the movement was
based until 1940, when they left Europe to come to the US, not a person.
>> > you can't be sure. �And, of course, from a Jewish point of view, even
>> > the messiah isn't really someone to be worshipped. �That would be
>> > sacriligeous. �It's not like he's God.
>>
>> > In any case, I didn't think that any of them made that claim since
>> > Schneerson died. �I will grant, however, that those of his followers
>> > who still hold him to be the messiah after his death could reasonably
>
> is it "the Messiah" or "the messiah"
>> > Schneerson died. �I will grant, however, that those of his followers
>> > who still hold him to be the messiah after his death could reasonably
>
Most messianic Jews would probably capitalize it. I tend not to use
that sort of "reverential" capitalization.
>> > be considered to have split off to form a doctrinally different form
>> > of Judaism.
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |If I may digress momentarily from
SF Bay Area (1982-) |the mainstream of this evening's
Chicago (1964-1982) |symposium, I'd like to sing a song
|which is completely pointless.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | Tom Lehrer
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Robin Bignall
Oct 14, 2012, 11:44:42 AM10/14/12
to
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
Yusuf B Gursey
Oct 14, 2012, 11:57:38 AM10/14/12
to
>
> See especially footnote 9. You can decide for yourself whether the
> argument is logical. The passage from the Talmud (about when a young
> person's oath is considered binding as an adult's is, and the
> possession of two pubic hairs, and things like that) is also available
> on line.
>
well, it says as I predicted, it is on his 13th *Jewish* birthday,
> See especially footnote 9. You can decide for yourself whether the
> argument is logical. The passage from the Talmud (about when a young
> person's oath is considered binding as an adult's is, and the
> possession of two pubic hairs, and things like that) is also available
> on line.
>
according to the Jewish calendar.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oct 14, 2012, 12:05:37 PM10/14/12
to
> Jewish blessings often _follow_, such as "grace after meals."
Not often. Indeed, the Birkat haMazon is one of the only ones I can
think of. The justification is that the commandment is stated, in
Deut 8:10, as "When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless
the Lord your God for the good land which He gave you."
The only other ones that spring to mind are the Shehecheyanu, which is
said when a milestone is reached or something good (and infrequent)
has happened and the Birkat haGomel, said when one has survived a
serious illness or brush with death.
Everything else seems to fall under the notion that you're not
supposed to enjoy something without first acknowledging that God is
responsible for it and you're not supposed to fulfill a commandment
without first acknowledging the commandment (to indicate that you're
not doing it accidentally). This includes blessings before the meal
and before ritual handwashing.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |There are just two rules of
SF Bay Area (1982-) |governance in a free society: Mind
Chicago (1964-1982) |your own business. Keep your hands
|to yourself.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | P.J. O'Rourke
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Yusuf B Gursey
Oct 14, 2012, 12:06:45 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 11:41 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
the Messiah is supposed to be unique, therefore I find capitalization
more logical.
wrote:
more logical.
Dr Nick
Oct 14, 2012, 12:25:21 PM10/14/12
to
Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> writes:
> On 13/10/2012 5:57 PM, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 2:07 am, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2012 10:05 PM, DKleinecke wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 12, 5:44 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Because people who are not close to the land (or sea) are
>>>>> squeamish, and "squid" is either something that squirts ink (and
>>>>> people don't want to ingest ink) or a giant sea monster that
>>>>> endangers submarines (I think there's been more than one movie of
>>>>> *Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea*)?
>>>
>>>> I think the giant squid in the comic about the shark is a very
>>>> handsome creature.
>>> I used to think giant squid were fictional (as did, I believe,
>>> early scientists), but they aren't. I've seen the remains of one. I
>>> wouldn't call it handsome, exactly, but perhaps being dead made it
>>> less attractive.
>>> -- Cheryl
>> You mean the one in the Rev Moses Harvey's bathtub?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logy_bay_giant_squid_1873.png
>>
>
> That's an impressive specimen!
>
> The one I saw was found in Hare Bay in the last century, and donated
> to a museum by the biologist who studied it. I think I saw it on
> display quite early, before it was relegated to a tank in the
> somewhere in the basement, and I certainly saw it just before the
> museum's move to a new site, when they put a lot of their more obscure
> exhibits back on display for a short time.
>
> http://thescope.ca/nooks/the-giant-squid
There's a whopper in a tank in Te Papa. Apparently it's a colossal
squid.
> On 13/10/2012 5:57 PM, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 2:07 am, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2012 10:05 PM, DKleinecke wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 12, 5:44 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Because people who are not close to the land (or sea) are
>>>>> squeamish, and "squid" is either something that squirts ink (and
>>>>> people don't want to ingest ink) or a giant sea monster that
>>>>> endangers submarines (I think there's been more than one movie of
>>>>> *Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea*)?
>>>
>>>> I think the giant squid in the comic about the shark is a very
>>>> handsome creature.
>>> I used to think giant squid were fictional (as did, I believe,
>>> early scientists), but they aren't. I've seen the remains of one. I
>>> wouldn't call it handsome, exactly, but perhaps being dead made it
>>> less attractive.
>>> -- Cheryl
>> You mean the one in the Rev Moses Harvey's bathtub?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logy_bay_giant_squid_1873.png
>>
>
> That's an impressive specimen!
>
> The one I saw was found in Hare Bay in the last century, and donated
> to a museum by the biologist who studied it. I think I saw it on
> display quite early, before it was relegated to a tank in the
> somewhere in the basement, and I certainly saw it just before the
> museum's move to a new site, when they put a lot of their more obscure
> exhibits back on display for a short time.
>
> http://thescope.ca/nooks/the-giant-squid
There's a whopper in a tank in Te Papa. Apparently it's a colossal
squid.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 12:37:16 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 13, 1:11 pm, Hans Aberg <haberg-n...@telia.com> wrote:
> >>> On 2012/10/12 23:13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >>>> "Parody" is explicitly excluded from copyright violation.
>
> >>> Actually, it is not, if it is US copyright law you have in mind. It
> >>> falls under the US copyright law concept of "fair use", not explicitly,
> >>> but subject to interpretation by the judicial courts. Cf.
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Copyright_issues
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody
>
> >> If a "judicial court" [a redundancy!]
>
> > In the sense of "rendering a judgment", possibly, but in the sense of
> > "relating to the judiciary", not at all. There are a lot of courts
> > that are part of the executive branch (e.g., courts martial, tax
> > court, or the National Labor Relations Board") and even the
> > legislative branch (e.g., the senate in cases of impeachment).
>
> This ngram search "judicial court" actually gives some English usage,
> mostly in the 19th century. In the past, "court of justice" was most
> common, overtaken by "court of law" around 1930.
>
> http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=judicial+court%2Ccourt+o...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> has issued an opinion, then it is explicit.
>
> > Only with respect to the case before the court. Otherwise, unless a
> > precedent-setting court, in its opinion explicitly said that courts
> > must excludeparodyfrom copyright violation, it would only be an
> > explicit exclusion if it was mentioned in a statute.
>
> > What the Supreme Court said in _Campbell_ was thatparodyargued for
> > fair use and the mere fact that the use was commercial did not rule
> > that out. (They also distinguished between "parody"--using a work to
> > poke fun at the work--and "satire"--using a work to poke fun at
> > something else--and said that the latter had less protection.) But in
> > any case, all that was made explicit was that the commercial nature of
> > aparodycould not be taken to render the use non-fair, but still
> > leaves it up the individual trial judge to determine whether other
> > factors outweigh the fact that it's aparody.
>
> This is the point I wanted to make: it is still up to the individual court.-
Stephen Colbert was interviewed on *Meet the Press* this morning (out
of character!). He said, "I am a satirist. Satire is parody with a
point."
That very "point" is protected to the highest degee by the First
Amendment from government interference.
> On 2012/10/13 18:54, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >> On Oct 12, 7:38 pm, Hans Aberg <haberg-n...@telia.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >>> On 2012/10/12 23:13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >>>> "Parody" is explicitly excluded from copyright violation.
>
> >>> Actually, it is not, if it is US copyright law you have in mind. It
> >>> falls under the US copyright law concept of "fair use", not explicitly,
> >>> but subject to interpretation by the judicial courts. Cf.
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Copyright_issues
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody
>
> >> If a "judicial court" [a redundancy!]
>
> > In the sense of "rendering a judgment", possibly, but in the sense of
> > "relating to the judiciary", not at all. There are a lot of courts
> > that are part of the executive branch (e.g., courts martial, tax
> > court, or the National Labor Relations Board") and even the
> > legislative branch (e.g., the senate in cases of impeachment).
>
> This ngram search "judicial court" actually gives some English usage,
> mostly in the 19th century. In the past, "court of justice" was most
> common, overtaken by "court of law" around 1930.
>
> http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=judicial+court%2Ccourt+o...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> has issued an opinion, then it is explicit.
>
> > Only with respect to the case before the court. Otherwise, unless a
> > precedent-setting court, in its opinion explicitly said that courts
> > must excludeparodyfrom copyright violation, it would only be an
> > explicit exclusion if it was mentioned in a statute.
>
> > What the Supreme Court said in _Campbell_ was thatparodyargued for
> > fair use and the mere fact that the use was commercial did not rule
> > that out. (They also distinguished between "parody"--using a work to
> > poke fun at the work--and "satire"--using a work to poke fun at
> > something else--and said that the latter had less protection.) But in
> > any case, all that was made explicit was that the commercial nature of
> > aparodycould not be taken to render the use non-fair, but still
> > leaves it up the individual trial judge to determine whether other
> > factors outweigh the fact that it's aparody.
>
> This is the point I wanted to make: it is still up to the individual court.-
Stephen Colbert was interviewed on *Meet the Press* this morning (out
of character!). He said, "I am a satirist. Satire is parody with a
point."
That very "point" is protected to the highest degee by the First
Amendment from government interference.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 12:42:16 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 11:41 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> It was. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Chabad-Lubavitch
> movement, who died in 1994. I remember it being a controversy when he
> died, as most (I believe) of the Lubavitchers decided, along with the
> rest of the Jews that since he actually died he must not, in fact,
> have been the messiah. (Something I don't believe he was ever
> supposed to have claimed to have been, but nor did he vigorously
> deny.)
Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah (at least according to what is
recorded of his deeds and words), and sidestepped the question when it
was placed directly.
It could be that claiming the position disqualifies one from it.
wrote:
> It was. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Chabad-Lubavitch
> movement, who died in 1994. I remember it being a controversy when he
> died, as most (I believe) of the Lubavitchers decided, along with the
> rest of the Jews that since he actually died he must not, in fact,
> have been the messiah. (Something I don't believe he was ever
> supposed to have claimed to have been, but nor did he vigorously
> deny.)
recorded of his deeds and words), and sidestepped the question when it
was placed directly.
It could be that claiming the position disqualifies one from it.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 12:46:13 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 11:31 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> >> And there's nothing I can think of that rules out followers of
> >> different leaders from each suspecting that their leader is the
> >> messiah, as long as they accept the possibility that they might be
> >> wrong. Until he does the things the messiah is supposed to do (and
> >> doesn't do things the messiah isn't supposed to do, like die first),
> >> you can't be sure. And, of course, from a Jewish point of view, even
> >> the messiah isn't really someone to be worshipped. That would be
> >> sacriligeous. It's not like he's God.
>
> > You never heard about the financial and pedophile scandals that have
> > come to light in recent years?
>
> That's such a non-sequitur, I honestly have no idea what to make of
> it. What do financial and pedophile scandals have to do with whether
> it's considered improper for different groups to suspect that
> different people are the messiah? Or to the idea that the messiah
> isn't someone to be worshipped?
For someone who claims to be a Jew, your mastery of Jesuitical
argumentation style is astounding. I will not dignify such deliberate
misinterpretations and misrepresentations with a response.
wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > On Oct 14, 3:16 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >> > ?? Every block holds the worshippers of a different rebbe. How many
> >> > of them claim that theirs is the Messiah?
>
> >> I doubt that you'd get many of them to describe their relationship
> >> with their rebbe as "worshipping them". (If you just meant
> >> "worshippers of God who follow different rebbes", there's nothing
> >> unusual about that.)
>
> > How they "describe their relationship" need not have anything to do
> > with their actual relationship.
>
> And what, specifically, do you see that justifies describing their
> actual relationship as "worshipping them"?
Their total behavior.
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > On Oct 14, 3:16 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >> > ?? Every block holds the worshippers of a different rebbe. How many
> >> > of them claim that theirs is the Messiah?
>
> >> I doubt that you'd get many of them to describe their relationship
> >> with their rebbe as "worshipping them". (If you just meant
> >> "worshippers of God who follow different rebbes", there's nothing
> >> unusual about that.)
>
> > How they "describe their relationship" need not have anything to do
> > with their actual relationship.
>
> And what, specifically, do you see that justifies describing their
> actual relationship as "worshipping them"?
> >> And there's nothing I can think of that rules out followers of
> >> different leaders from each suspecting that their leader is the
> >> messiah, as long as they accept the possibility that they might be
> >> wrong. Until he does the things the messiah is supposed to do (and
> >> doesn't do things the messiah isn't supposed to do, like die first),
> >> you can't be sure. And, of course, from a Jewish point of view, even
> >> the messiah isn't really someone to be worshipped. That would be
> >> sacriligeous. It's not like he's God.
>
> > You never heard about the financial and pedophile scandals that have
> > come to light in recent years?
>
> That's such a non-sequitur, I honestly have no idea what to make of
> it. What do financial and pedophile scandals have to do with whether
> it's considered improper for different groups to suspect that
> different people are the messiah? Or to the idea that the messiah
> isn't someone to be worshipped?
argumentation style is astounding. I will not dignify such deliberate
misinterpretations and misrepresentations with a response.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 12:47:50 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 11:20 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:
Why? Cleanliness -- both ritual and physical -- is an important
feature of Jewish culture.
wrote:
feature of Jewish culture.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 12:52:02 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 10:28 am, Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-10-14, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> > On 13/10/12 6:31 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 01:26:27 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
> >> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Oct 13, 4:20 am, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> >>>> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
> >>>>> On 12 Oct 2012 22:12:46 GMT, Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> American publishers aren't bound by the laws of the Church of
> >>>>>> England.
> >>>>>> (Perhaps that's why the Authorized Version isn't usually called that
> >>>>>> over
> >>>>>> there, as there is no-one to authorize it - or to regulate its
> >>>>>> compliance
> >>>>>> to any particular text).
>
> >>>>> I'm not sure that "Authorised Version" is in the official title of the
> >>>>> so-called King James Bible.
>
> >>>> No, but until a couple of decades ago it was always referred to, when
> >>>> needed, in the UK as the "Authorised Version". We seem to have adopted
> >>>> "King James" from the US.
>
> >>> because in the US there is no sinlge dominant church to "authorise"
> >>> it.
There is no _established_ church to authorize it.
> On 2012-10-14, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> > On 13/10/12 6:31 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 01:26:27 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
> >> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Oct 13, 4:20 am, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> >>>> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
> >>>>> On 12 Oct 2012 22:12:46 GMT, Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> American publishers aren't bound by the laws of the Church of
> >>>>>> England.
> >>>>>> (Perhaps that's why the Authorized Version isn't usually called that
> >>>>>> over
> >>>>>> there, as there is no-one to authorize it - or to regulate its
> >>>>>> compliance
> >>>>>> to any particular text).
>
> >>>>> I'm not sure that "Authorised Version" is in the official title of the
> >>>>> so-called King James Bible.
>
> >>>> No, but until a couple of decades ago it was always referred to, when
> >>>> needed, in the UK as the "Authorised Version". We seem to have adopted
> >>>> "King James" from the US.
>
> >>> because in the US there is no sinlge dominant church to "authorise"
> >>> it.
> >> It was "authorised" or, more exactly, "appointed" to be used in the
> >> Church of England at a particular time in history. The authorisation or
> >> appointment does not apply to any other denominations in England. In
> >> fact it does not apply in the Church of England today.
>
> > Surely, back then, it was still the death penalty for using any text but
> > the authorised one for religious purposes?
>
> Once free of Rome, the Church of England accepted the use of English
> instead of Latin, and the law of the land relaxed somewhat in matters of
> religion. A text might not be authorised, but that didn't make it
> forbidden - particularly if it had been licensed or permitted by an earlier
> protestant monarch. Henry VIII before his split from the papacy, and Mary
> I (Bloody Mary) when trying to re-establish Roman supremacy in England,
> were the last to impose the death penalty on protestants who didn't use the
> Latin Vulgate. By the time of King James I you could be fined for not
> attending Sunday services of the state religion, but it took some special
> effort to get the death penalty.
>
> Ironically, when the Church of Rome decreed the use of the vernacular in
> worship, in the 20th century, some Catholics defected to the Church of
> England to join congregations that were still using Latin.
Bernardin, no less, perhaps the last liberal Catholic prelate -- to
say some masses in Latin.
Where were C of E churches "still" using Latin?
Jerry Friedman
Oct 14, 2012, 1:08:14 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 10:37 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 1:11 pm, Hans Aberg <haberg-n...@telia.com> wrote:
> > On 2012/10/13 18:54, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
...
> On Oct 13, 1:11 pm, Hans Aberg <haberg-n...@telia.com> wrote:
> > On 2012/10/13 18:54, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> > > Only with respect to the case before the court. Otherwise, unless a
> > > precedent-setting court, in its opinion explicitly said that courts
> > > explicit exclusion if it was mentioned in a statute.
>
> > > What the Supreme Court said in _Campbell_ was that parody argued for
>
> > > fair use and the mere fact that the use was commercial did not rule
> > > that out. (They also distinguished between "parody"--using a work to
> > > poke fun at the work--and "satire"--using a work to poke fun at
> > > something else--and said that the latter had less protection.) But in
> > > any case, all that was made explicit was that the commercial nature of
> > > a parody could not be taken to render the use non-fair, but still
> > > that out. (They also distinguished between "parody"--using a work to
> > > poke fun at the work--and "satire"--using a work to poke fun at
> > > something else--and said that the latter had less protection.) But in
> > > any case, all that was made explicit was that the commercial nature of
> > > leaves it up the individual trial judge to determine whether other
> > > factors outweigh the fact that it's a parody.
>
> > This is the point I wanted to make: it is still up to the individual court.-
>
> Stephen Colbert was interviewed on *Meet the Press* this morning (out
> of character!). He said, "I am a satirist. Satire is parody with a
> point."
...
> > > factors outweigh the fact that it's a parody.
>
> > This is the point I wanted to make: it is still up to the individual court.-
>
> Stephen Colbert was interviewed on *Meet the Press* this morning (out
> of character!). He said, "I am a satirist. Satire is parody with a
> point."
"Satire is a lesson, parody is a game."
--Vladimir Nabokov, explaining why he didn't do what Colbert does.
http://lib.ru/NABOKOW/Inter06.txt_with-big-pictures.html
--
Jerry Friedman
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oct 14, 2012, 1:39:48 PM10/14/12
to
> On Oct 14, 11:31 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>> > On Oct 14, 3:16 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>> >> > ?? Every block holds the worshippers of a different rebbe. How many
>> >> > of them claim that theirs is the Messiah?
>>
>> >> I doubt that you'd get many of them to describe their relationship
>> >> with their rebbe as "worshipping them". (If you just meant
>> >> "worshippers of God who follow different rebbes", there's nothing
>> >> unusual about that.)
>>
>> > How they "describe their relationship" need not have anything to do
>> > with their actual relationship.
>>
>> And what, specifically, do you see that justifies describing their
>> actual relationship as "worshipping them"?
>
> Their total behavior.
That's nicely specific.
> wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>> > On Oct 14, 3:16 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>> >> > ?? Every block holds the worshippers of a different rebbe. How many
>> >> > of them claim that theirs is the Messiah?
>>
>> >> I doubt that you'd get many of them to describe their relationship
>> >> with their rebbe as "worshipping them". (If you just meant
>> >> "worshippers of God who follow different rebbes", there's nothing
>> >> unusual about that.)
>>
>> > How they "describe their relationship" need not have anything to do
>> > with their actual relationship.
>>
>> And what, specifically, do you see that justifies describing their
>> actual relationship as "worshipping them"?
>
> Their total behavior.
>> >> And there's nothing I can think of that rules out followers of
>> >> different leaders from each suspecting that their leader is the
>> >> messiah, as long as they accept the possibility that they might
>> >> be wrong. Until he does the things the messiah is supposed to do
>> >> (and doesn't do things the messiah isn't supposed to do, like
>> >> die first), you can't be sure. And, of course, from a Jewish
>> >> point of view, even the messiah isn't really someone to be
>> >> worshipped. That would be sacriligeous. It's not like he's God.
>>
>> > You never heard about the financial and pedophile scandals that
>> > have come to light in recent years?
>>
>> That's such a non-sequitur, I honestly have no idea what to make of
>> it. What do financial and pedophile scandals have to do with
>> whether it's considered improper for different groups to suspect
>> that different people are the messiah? Or to the idea that the
>> messiah isn't someone to be worshipped?
>
> For someone who claims to be a Jew, your mastery of Jesuitical
> argumentation style is astounding.
> I will not dignify such deliberate misinterpretations and
> misrepresentations with a response.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Giving money and power to government
SF Bay Area (1982-) |is like giving whiskey and car keys
Chicago (1964-1982) |to teenage boys.
| P.J. O'Rourke
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oct 14, 2012, 1:47:11 PM10/14/12
to
seen himself as preparing the way for the "Son of Man". He also, like
Schneerson, died before doing the things the messiah was expected to
do.
> It could be that claiming the position disqualifies one from it.
notion.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Any programming problem can be
SF Bay Area (1982-) |solved by adding another layer of
Chicago (1964-1982) |indirection. Any performance
|problem can be solved by removing
evan.kir...@gmail.com |one.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Mike L
Oct 14, 2012, 2:02:59 PM10/14/12
to
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 00:28:03 +0200, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com>
wrote:
>James Silverton wrote:
[...]
>>
>> "Strand" for beach is a pretty old word; see the Scots Ballad of Sir
>> Patrick Spens where the strand was where he was walking when he was told
>> to take the king's new ship to sea.
>
>The word "strand" doesn't occur in this version of the ballad:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/msg/88a1ac1d5c4a43d4?hl=en
I wonder how young Child missed that pearl. Applauded and saved.
--
Mike.
wrote:
>James Silverton wrote:
[...]
>>
>> "Strand" for beach is a pretty old word; see the Scots Ballad of Sir
>> Patrick Spens where the strand was where he was walking when he was told
>> to take the king's new ship to sea.
>
>The word "strand" doesn't occur in this version of the ballad:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/msg/88a1ac1d5c4a43d4?hl=en
I wonder how young Child missed that pearl. Applauded and saved.
--
Mike.
Mike L
Oct 14, 2012, 2:12:15 PM10/14/12
to
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:07:14 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Oct 13, 5:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-10-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 13, 2:39 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> Yes. The plural "swimming baths" was probably the dominant form; I
>> >> think that was because earlier ones had real bathrooms - I remember
>> >> reading of a case in maybe the 'seventies in which a Council finally
>> >> built an old man a bathroom at home because he was the last customer
>> >> keeping the public bath open.
>>
>> > Again, misinterpretable, since "bathroom" is the name of the room
>> > containing a sink, a toilet, and a bathtub (shower stall). A luxurious
>> > one these days can contain a jacuzzi, which is what that fellow might
>> > have received?
Oh, I have no doubt that a jacuzzi would have been included: nothing's
too good for the working class in this socialist republic.
>>
>> Whereas you can't take a bath in an AmE "half bath".
>
>Quaintly called, in luxury apartment plans from the early 20th
>century, the "powder room" (only sink and toilet).
Well, it's always been sensible to do one's wigs in a small separate
room. The stuff spreads like nobody's business, and makes extra worlk
for the staff.
--
Mike.
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Oct 13, 5:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-10-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> >> Yes. The plural "swimming baths" was probably the dominant form; I
>> >> think that was because earlier ones had real bathrooms - I remember
>> >> reading of a case in maybe the 'seventies in which a Council finally
>> >> built an old man a bathroom at home because he was the last customer
>> >> keeping the public bath open.
>>
>> > Again, misinterpretable, since "bathroom" is the name of the room
>> > containing a sink, a toilet, and a bathtub (shower stall). A luxurious
>> > one these days can contain a jacuzzi, which is what that fellow might
>> > have received?
Oh, I have no doubt that a jacuzzi would have been included: nothing's
too good for the working class in this socialist republic.
>>
>> Whereas you can't take a bath in an AmE "half bath".
>
>Quaintly called, in luxury apartment plans from the early 20th
>century, the "powder room" (only sink and toilet).
Well, it's always been sensible to do one's wigs in a small separate
room. The stuff spreads like nobody's business, and makes extra worlk
for the staff.
--
Mike.
Snidely
Oct 14, 2012, 2:37:22 PM10/14/12
to
Tak To explained :
> On 10/12/2012 8:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 6:05 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> This is interesting. Is the word "unclean" used here because English
>>> has no precise word for "ritually impure", or because Hebrew uses the
>>> same word for both secular and religious uncleanness?
>>
>> Was there a concept of "dirtiness"? Bathing to get grime off is a
>> fairly recent concept in much of the world,
>
> I would say bathing _regularly_ to get grime off
> is a recent concept, not bathing itself.
>
One of the reasons for the disappearance of the Essene sect is that
they located their bathing pool downstream of their latrines.
Didn't the Roman's bathe regularly, although perhaps not as early as
the writing of the Torah?
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
> On 10/12/2012 8:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 6:05 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> This is interesting. Is the word "unclean" used here because English
>>> has no precise word for "ritually impure", or because Hebrew uses the
>>> same word for both secular and religious uncleanness?
>>
>> Was there a concept of "dirtiness"? Bathing to get grime off is a
>> fairly recent concept in much of the world,
>
> I would say bathing _regularly_ to get grime off
> is a recent concept, not bathing itself.
>
One of the reasons for the disappearance of the Essene sect is that
they located their bathing pool downstream of their latrines.
Didn't the Roman's bathe regularly, although perhaps not as early as
the writing of the Torah?
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
Mike L
Oct 14, 2012, 2:42:03 PM10/14/12
to
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 12:21:17 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Browne used "flammability" and "inflammability" with the same meaning
>> in _Vulgar Errors_ (1646). OED has no record of "flammability" between
>> 1669 and 1942.
>
>They will almost certainly revise that. John Walker's 1838 _Critical
>Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language_ defines
>"flammability" as "the quality of admitting to be set on fire". And
>Henry Todd's 1836 _Johnson's Dictionary, Improved by Todd_ defines it
>as "an aptness to take fire". An 1832 _Dictionary of the Welsh
>Language_ gives it as the translation for "fflamlydrwydd". The 1829
>_London Encyclopaedia_ says
>
> flammation is the act of inflaming, or causing to flame:
> flammability, the being possible, or likely, to blaze out.
Ah. Good to have these gaps filled.
>
>> The gap for literal "inflammability" is from 1674 to 1831, but one
>> of Jefferson's letters has a figurative use in 1787.
>
>Tons of them in Google Books.
I wish I could get myself into the GB habit.
--
Mike.
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Browne used "flammability" and "inflammability" with the same meaning
>> in _Vulgar Errors_ (1646). OED has no record of "flammability" between
>> 1669 and 1942.
>
>They will almost certainly revise that. John Walker's 1838 _Critical
>Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language_ defines
>"flammability" as "the quality of admitting to be set on fire". And
>Henry Todd's 1836 _Johnson's Dictionary, Improved by Todd_ defines it
>as "an aptness to take fire". An 1832 _Dictionary of the Welsh
>Language_ gives it as the translation for "fflamlydrwydd". The 1829
>_London Encyclopaedia_ says
>
> flammation is the act of inflaming, or causing to flame:
> flammability, the being possible, or likely, to blaze out.
Ah. Good to have these gaps filled.
>
>> The gap for literal "inflammability" is from 1674 to 1831, but one
>> of Jefferson's letters has a figurative use in 1787.
>
>Tons of them in Google Books.
I wish I could get myself into the GB habit.
--
Mike.
Snidely
Oct 14, 2012, 2:42:22 PM10/14/12
to
benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote on 10/12/2012 :
> And let's not forget that "bathing suit" (= swimsuit) is still known
> to at least some living North Americans.
Still seems to be common to me, although swimsuit leads the way. Board
shorts have increased in popularity, even among those who don't surf.
But there are still reference to swim trunks and sometimes bathing
trunks resurfaces. Which reminds me of my question, why "trunks"?
Does this go back to Tudor fashions?
> And let's not forget that "bathing suit" (= swimsuit) is still known
> to at least some living North Americans.
Still seems to be common to me, although swimsuit leads the way. Board
shorts have increased in popularity, even among those who don't surf.
But there are still reference to swim trunks and sometimes bathing
trunks resurfaces. Which reminds me of my question, why "trunks"?
Does this go back to Tudor fashions?
Mike L
Oct 14, 2012, 2:46:45 PM10/14/12
to
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 13:24:17 -0700, Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>James Silverton wrote:
>> Mike L wrote:
>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>>>> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote:
>
>>>>> There is no authorised spelling of "authorized" and no authorized
>>>>> spelling of "authorised".
>>>>
>>>> I think Dr Johnson would have something to say about that.
>>>>
>>>> But to mix the two in a single sentence????
>>>
>>> That was a handsome gesture of international goodwill.
>>>
>>> In a better world than this, the best rule would be "s" for words of
>>> Latin origin and "z" for Greek.
>>>
>> Wouldn't help much! Who knows both Latin and Greek apart from a
>> miniscule minority.
>>
>Minuscule, even.
That little problem would also be resolved in a better world than
this.
--
Mike.
>James Silverton wrote:
>> Mike L wrote:
>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>>>> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote:
>
>>>>> There is no authorised spelling of "authorized" and no authorized
>>>>> spelling of "authorised".
>>>>
>>>> I think Dr Johnson would have something to say about that.
>>>>
>>>> But to mix the two in a single sentence????
>>>
>>> That was a handsome gesture of international goodwill.
>>>
>>> In a better world than this, the best rule would be "s" for words of
>>> Latin origin and "z" for Greek.
>>>
>> Wouldn't help much! Who knows both Latin and Greek apart from a
>> miniscule minority.
>>
>Minuscule, even.
That little problem would also be resolved in a better world than
this.
--
Mike.
Mike L
Oct 14, 2012, 2:48:42 PM10/14/12
to
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 09:45:54 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 14/10/12 3:45 AM, Mike L wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 09:11:57 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 10:35 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 05:23:19 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>
>>>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 1. While the Church of England authorises the Lectionary - what
>>>>
>>>>> s!'
>>>>
>>>>>> passages are to be read on which occasion - it does not authorize
>>>>
>>>>> z!
I did specify "In a better world than this".
--
Mike.
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 14/10/12 3:45 AM, Mike L wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 09:11:57 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 10:35 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 05:23:19 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>
>>>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 1. While the Church of England authorises the Lectionary - what
>>>>
>>>>> s!'
>>>>
>>>>>> passages are to be read on which occasion - it does not authorize
>>>>
>>>>> z!
>>>>
>>>> There is no authorised spelling of "authorized" and no authorized
>>>> spelling of "authorised".
>>>
>>> I think Dr Johnson would have something to say about that.
>>>
>>> But to mix the two in a single sentence????
>>
>> That was a handsome gesture of international goodwill.
>>
>> In a better world than this, the best rule would be "s" for words of
>> Latin origin and "z" for Greek.
>>
>
>But how many of us know enough Greek to be able to tell?
>>>> There is no authorised spelling of "authorized" and no authorized
>>>> spelling of "authorised".
>>>
>>> I think Dr Johnson would have something to say about that.
>>>
>>> But to mix the two in a single sentence????
>>
>> That was a handsome gesture of international goodwill.
>>
>> In a better world than this, the best rule would be "s" for words of
>> Latin origin and "z" for Greek.
>>
>
I did specify "In a better world than this".
--
Mike.
Lanarcam
Oct 14, 2012, 2:49:03 PM10/14/12
to
Skitt
Oct 14, 2012, 2:49:05 PM10/14/12
to
Robert Bannister wrote:
> I am sure my English is no newer than yours, but I do remember people
> talking about "bath(e)ing" their babies or even their dogs. Today, they
> only "bath" them.
>
Not on these (USA) shores.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
> I am sure my English is no newer than yours, but I do remember people
> talking about "bath(e)ing" their babies or even their dogs. Today, they
> only "bath" them.
>
Not on these (USA) shores.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
Snidely
Oct 14, 2012, 2:49:27 PM10/14/12
to
on 10/14/2012, Snidely supposed :
found in another post when I read heads.
> Tak To explained :
>> On 10/12/2012 8:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Oct 11, 6:05 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is interesting. Is the word "unclean" used here because English
>>>> has no precise word for "ritually impure", or because Hebrew uses the
>>>> same word for both secular and religious uncleanness?
>>>
>>> Was there a concept of "dirtiness"? Bathing to get grime off is a
>>> fairly recent concept in much of the world,
>>
>> I would say bathing _regularly_ to get grime off
>> is a recent concept, not bathing itself.
>>
>
> One of the reasons
[that is given]
>> On 10/12/2012 8:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Oct 11, 6:05 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is interesting. Is the word "unclean" used here because English
>>>> has no precise word for "ritually impure", or because Hebrew uses the
>>>> same word for both secular and religious uncleanness?
>>>
>>> Was there a concept of "dirtiness"? Bathing to get grime off is a
>>> fairly recent concept in much of the world,
>>
>> I would say bathing _regularly_ to get grime off
>> is a recent concept, not bathing itself.
>>
>
> One of the reasons
> for the disappearance of the Essene sect is that they
> located their bathing pool downstream of their latrines.
Of course, the clipping I'm responding to has a reference to that, as I
> located their bathing pool downstream of their latrines.
found in another post when I read heads.
Yusuf B Gursey
Oct 14, 2012, 2:50:31 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 2:37 pm, Snidely <snidely....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tak To explained :
>
> > On 10/12/2012 8:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Oct 11, 6:05 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> This is interesting. Is the word "unclean" used here because English
> >>> has no precise word for "ritually impure", or because Hebrew uses the
> >>> same word for both secular and religious uncleanness?
>
> >> Was there a concept of "dirtiness"? Bathing to get grime off is a
> >> fairly recent concept in much of the world,
>
> > I would say bathing _regularly_ to get grime off
> > is a recent concept, not bathing itself.
>
> One of the reasons for the disappearance of the Essene sect is that
> they located their bathing pool downstream of their latrines.
and just after stepping out of their latrines, they bathed, spreading
> Tak To explained :
>
> > On 10/12/2012 8:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Oct 11, 6:05 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> This is interesting. Is the word "unclean" used here because English
> >>> has no precise word for "ritually impure", or because Hebrew uses the
> >>> same word for both secular and religious uncleanness?
>
> >> Was there a concept of "dirtiness"? Bathing to get grime off is a
> >> fairly recent concept in much of the world,
>
> > I would say bathing _regularly_ to get grime off
> > is a recent concept, not bathing itself.
>
> One of the reasons for the disappearance of the Essene sect is that
> they located their bathing pool downstream of their latrines.
parasites
Whiskers
Oct 14, 2012, 2:52:34 PM10/14/12
to
2. Authorized forms of service may be said or sung in Latin in the
following places -
Provincial Convocations
Chapels and other public places in university colleges and halls
University churches
The colleges of Westminster, Winchester and Eton
Such other places of religious and sound learning as custom allows or
the bishop or other the Ordinary may permit
I can't produce a list of churches or services; local knowledge would
probbaly be the best way to discover when and where. (Of course, since
2008, Latin has been permitted in Roman Catholic churches too).
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Skitt
Oct 14, 2012, 2:55:28 PM10/14/12
to
Cheryl wrote:
> tony cooper wrote:
>> helmet.
>
> My mother called that a 'sponge bath', although it usually involved a
> sink and a reluctant small child rather than a soldier and a helmet. I
> think she had difficulty getting across the idea that you were supposed
> to wash ALL of yourself, not just the face and hands you usually got
> away with when faced with a sink rather than a bathtub.
>
Ever hear of a girl taking a PTA bath before going on a date?
> tony cooper wrote:
>> Adam Funk wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> Mike L wrote:
>>>>> Yes. The plural "swimming baths" was probably the dominant form; I
>>>>> think that was because earlier ones had real bathrooms - I remember
>>>>> reading of a case in maybe the 'seventies in which a Council finally
>>>>> built an old man a bathroom at home because he was the last customer
>>>>> keeping the public bath open.
>>>>
>>>> Again, misinterpretable, since "bathroom" is the name of the room
>>>> containing a sink, a toilet, and a bathtub (shower stall). A luxurious
>>>> one these days can contain a jacuzzi, which is what that fellow might
>>>> have received?
>>>
>>>>> Yes. The plural "swimming baths" was probably the dominant form; I
>>>>> think that was because earlier ones had real bathrooms - I remember
>>>>> reading of a case in maybe the 'seventies in which a Council finally
>>>>> built an old man a bathroom at home because he was the last customer
>>>>> keeping the public bath open.
>>>>
>>>> Again, misinterpretable, since "bathroom" is the name of the room
>>>> containing a sink, a toilet, and a bathtub (shower stall). A luxurious
>>>> one these days can contain a jacuzzi, which is what that fellow might
>>>> have received?
>>>
>>> Whereas you can't take a bath in an AmE "half bath".
>>
>> You most certainly can if you try. Soldiers can take a bath in a
>>
>> helmet.
>
> My mother called that a 'sponge bath', although it usually involved a
> sink and a reluctant small child rather than a soldier and a helmet. I
> think she had difficulty getting across the idea that you were supposed
> to wash ALL of yourself, not just the face and hands you usually got
> away with when faced with a sink rather than a bathtub.
>
Ever hear of a girl taking a PTA bath before going on a date?
Snidely
Oct 14, 2012, 2:58:25 PM10/14/12
to
Guy Barry was thinking very hard :
> "Peter Moylan" wrote in message
>> On 14/10/12 10:58, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> > But why aren't Floridans taller than average?
>
> I thought it was "Floridians" (as with "Canadians" from "Canada"). Am I
> wrong?
Not this time!
/dps "but then, I'm on the other coast"
> "Peter Moylan" wrote in message
>> On 14/10/12 10:58, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> > But why aren't Floridans taller than average?
>
> I thought it was "Floridians" (as with "Canadians" from "Canada"). Am I
> wrong?
Not this time!
/dps "but then, I'm on the other coast"
Snidely
Oct 14, 2012, 3:01:54 PM10/14/12
to
After serious thinking Yusuf B Gursey wrote :
> On Oct 14, 9:22ï¿œam, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>> Am 14.10.2012 15:15, schrieb pauljk:
>>> Well that makes sense, if you are launching counter-earth-rotational
>>> satellites you want to do it from a place as far away from the equator
>>> as possible.
>>
>> BTW: Are there Pole-to-pole-rotational satellites?
>>
>
> I believe there are, though not a whole lot of them. the Norway site
> would be good place to launch them.
Vanedeberg AFB, in Souther California, is the US polar orbit launch
site. I'd say polar launchings at least every 3 months.
/dps
> On Oct 14, 9:22ï¿œam, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>> Am 14.10.2012 15:15, schrieb pauljk:
>>> Well that makes sense, if you are launching counter-earth-rotational
>>> satellites you want to do it from a place as far away from the equator
>>> as possible.
>>
>> BTW: Are there Pole-to-pole-rotational satellites?
>>
>
> I believe there are, though not a whole lot of them. the Norway site
> would be good place to launch them.
Vanedeberg AFB, in Souther California, is the US polar orbit launch
site. I'd say polar launchings at least every 3 months.
/dps
Mike L
Oct 14, 2012, 3:02:49 PM10/14/12
to
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:44:42 +0100, Robin Bignall
<docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 08:01:20 -0400, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 13/10/2012 8:07 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> On 13/10/12 12:30 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
>>>> [a.u.e only]
>>
>>>> "Robert Bannister" wrote in message
>>>> news:adrmdr...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>>> On the other hand, we have a large number of expressions (bone the
>>>>> chicken, stone the cherries) that look like the opposite of what they
>>>>> mean and yet the dopey public don't go round inserting bones or
>>>>> throwing stones at their food, so I find it hard to believe that
>>>>> anyone really made a mistake over "inflammable".
>>
>>>> Once "flammable" became current, I'd have thought it was extremely easy
>>>> to make a mistake over "inflammable".
>>
>>> Indeed. I blame the flamens.
>>> (flamina? flamingoes?)
>>
>>(Willies?) Never looked that one up before. Interestingly, the word
>>also means a blast of wind, or the air that passes through a musical
>>instrument. Inflated with the Spirit.
>>
>Deflated with the hangover.
But still releasing quantities of flatus.
--
Mike.
<docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 08:01:20 -0400, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 13/10/2012 8:07 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> On 13/10/12 12:30 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
>>>> [a.u.e only]
>>
>>>> "Robert Bannister" wrote in message
>>>> news:adrmdr...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>>> On the other hand, we have a large number of expressions (bone the
>>>>> chicken, stone the cherries) that look like the opposite of what they
>>>>> mean and yet the dopey public don't go round inserting bones or
>>>>> throwing stones at their food, so I find it hard to believe that
>>>>> anyone really made a mistake over "inflammable".
>>
>>>> Once "flammable" became current, I'd have thought it was extremely easy
>>>> to make a mistake over "inflammable".
>>
>>> Indeed. I blame the flamens.
>>> (flamina? flamingoes?)
>>
>>(Willies?) Never looked that one up before. Interestingly, the word
>>also means a blast of wind, or the air that passes through a musical
>>instrument. Inflated with the Spirit.
>>
>Deflated with the hangover.
But still releasing quantities of flatus.
--
Mike.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Oct 14, 2012, 3:04:52 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 15, 5:23 am, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> writes:
I love that name. Presumably because there was already a "giant" squid
and this one was even bigger. I wonder if there are any other species
officially called "colossal"?
> Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> writes:
and this one was even bigger. I wonder if there are any other species
officially called "colossal"?
Snidely
Oct 14, 2012, 3:04:59 PM10/14/12
to
on 10/14/2012, Yusuf B Gursey supposed :
> On Oct 14, 7:11 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> wrote:
[I've lost count of the attribution levels; my apologies to the party
of the first quote]
>>>> The tangential speed of the surface of the Earth is also a
>>>> help.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_of_the_Earth#Angular_speed
>>>> ...the Kennedy Space Center is located at 28.59 North latitude, which
>>>> yields a speed of: ... 1,470.23 kilometres per hour (913.56 mph)
>>
>>> the gravitional force that must be overcome is in the radial direction.
>>
>> Indeed. The tangential speed at takeoff contributes to the eventual
>> orbital speed.
>>
>
> of course.
The general idea is that you're falling sideways faster than you're
falling down, so that you keep missing the earth.
> On Oct 14, 7:11 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> wrote:
[I've lost count of the attribution levels; my apologies to the party
of the first quote]
>>>> The tangential speed of the surface of the Earth is also a
>>>> help.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_of_the_Earth#Angular_speed
>>>> ...the Kennedy Space Center is located at 28.59 North latitude, which
>>>> yields a speed of: ... 1,470.23 kilometres per hour (913.56 mph)
>>
>>> the gravitional force that must be overcome is in the radial direction.
>>
>> Indeed. The tangential speed at takeoff contributes to the eventual
>> orbital speed.
>>
>
> of course.
The general idea is that you're falling sideways faster than you're
falling down, so that you keep missing the earth.
R H Draney
Oct 14, 2012, 3:33:39 PM10/14/12
to
Evan Kirshenbaum filted:
>> Jewish blessings often _follow_, such as "grace after meals."
>
>Not often. Indeed, the Birkat haMazon is one of the only ones I can
>think of. The justification is that the commandment is stated, in
>Deut 8:10, as "When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless
>the Lord your God for the good land which He gave you."
Gochisosama deshita....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>> Jewish blessings often _follow_, such as "grace after meals."
>
>Not often. Indeed, the Birkat haMazon is one of the only ones I can
>think of. The justification is that the commandment is stated, in
>Deut 8:10, as "When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless
>the Lord your God for the good land which He gave you."
Gochisosama deshita....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
tony cooper
Oct 14, 2012, 3:36:17 PM10/14/12
to
"Jewfish", but is now called the Goliath Grouper.
Fascinating fish, by the way. I've seen one when scuba diving.
Unbelievably large.
Also up for change is the unincorporated community in Monroe County,
Florida (the county that includes the Florida Keys) named Jewfish,
Florida. Residents of that area are against any change.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
tony cooper
Oct 14, 2012, 3:38:11 PM10/14/12
to
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:58:25 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Guy Barry was thinking very hard :
>> "Peter Moylan" wrote in message
>>> On 14/10/12 10:58, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>>> > But why aren't Floridans taller than average?
>>
>> I thought it was "Floridians" (as with "Canadians" from "Canada"). Am I
>> wrong?
>
>Not this time!
I have never heard "Floridans" used. It's "Floridians". I have never
heard "USAians" either, outside of newsgroup postings by Johnny
Foreigner.
wrote:
>Guy Barry was thinking very hard :
>> "Peter Moylan" wrote in message
>>> On 14/10/12 10:58, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>>> > But why aren't Floridans taller than average?
>>
>> I thought it was "Floridians" (as with "Canadians" from "Canada"). Am I
>> wrong?
>
>Not this time!
heard "USAians" either, outside of newsgroup postings by Johnny
Foreigner.
James Hogg
Oct 14, 2012, 3:39:07 PM10/14/12
to
and first posted here.
--
James
R H Draney
Oct 14, 2012, 3:45:30 PM10/14/12
to
benl...@ihug.co.nz filted:
>
>On Oct 15, 5:23=A0am, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> There's a whopper in a tank in Te Papa. =A0Apparently it's a colossal
"colossal"...when the last were available, I asked the fish-butcher for
three-quarters of a pound, and received a package containing just six shrimp....
Whatever the next size up from that is, it's served with an apple in its
mouth....r
>
>On Oct 15, 5:23=A0am, Dr Nick <nospa...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> There's a whopper in a tank in Te Papa. =A0Apparently it's a colossal
>> squid.
>
>I love that name. Presumably because there was already a "giant" squid
>and this one was even bigger. I wonder if there are any other species
>officially called "colossal"?
I've bought shrimp in sizes "large", "extra large", "jumbo" and
>
>I love that name. Presumably because there was already a "giant" squid
>and this one was even bigger. I wonder if there are any other species
>officially called "colossal"?
"colossal"...when the last were available, I asked the fish-butcher for
three-quarters of a pound, and received a package containing just six shrimp....
Whatever the next size up from that is, it's served with an apple in its
mouth....r
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oct 14, 2012, 4:08:07 PM10/14/12
to
tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 12:04:52 -0700 (PDT), "benl...@ihug.co.nz"
> <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>I love that name. Presumably because there was already a "giant" squid
>>and this one was even bigger. I wonder if there are any other species
>>officially called "colossal"?
>
> Not "colossal", but the epinephelus itajara has long been called the
> "Jewfish", but is now called the Goliath Grouper.
They couldn't have gone with "David"?
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 12:04:52 -0700 (PDT), "benl...@ihug.co.nz"
> <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>I love that name. Presumably because there was already a "giant" squid
>>and this one was even bigger. I wonder if there are any other species
>>officially called "colossal"?
>
> Not "colossal", but the epinephelus itajara has long been called the
> "Jewfish", but is now called the Goliath Grouper.
What's the local explanation for the old name? The OED, which defines
it as "a name given to various fishes, chiefly of the family
Serranidć", points to a quotation:
1697 W. Dampier _New Voy. around World_ ix. 249 The Jew-fish is
a very good Fish, and I judge so called by the English
because it hath Scales and Fins, therefore a clean Fish
according to the Levitical Law.
but it seems unlikely that that was unusual enough among English fish
to be the actual origin.
> Fascinating fish, by the way. I've seen one when scuba diving.
> Unbelievably large.
>
> Also up for change is the unincorporated community in Monroe County,
> Florida (the county that includes the Florida Keys) named Jewfish,
> Florida. Residents of that area are against any change.
--
Still with HP Labs |The reason that we don't have
SF Bay Area (1982-) |"bear-proof" garbage cans in the
Chicago (1964-1982) |park is that there is a significant
|overlap in intelligence between the
evan.kir...@gmail.com |smartest bears and the dumbest
|humans.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Yosemite Park Ranger
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 4:25:17 PM10/14/12
to
Olives. (Probably one of the smaller sizes.)
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 4:26:18 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 1:47 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > On Oct 14, 11:41 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> It was. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Chabad-Lubavitch
> >> movement, who died in 1994. I remember it being a controversy when he
> >> died, as most (I believe) of the Lubavitchers decided, along with the
> >> rest of the Jews that since he actually died he must not, in fact,
> >> have been the messiah. (Something I don't believe he was ever
> >> supposed to have claimed to have been, but nor did he vigorously
> >> deny.)
>
> > Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah (at least according to what is
> > recorded of his deeds and words), and sidestepped the question when it
> > was placed directly.
>
> Right. By the words preserved in the New Testament, he seems to have
> seen himself as preparing the way for the "Son of Man". He also, like
> Schneerson, died before doing the things the messiah was expected to
> do.
>
> > It could be that claiming the position disqualifies one from it.
>
> I don't think I've seen biblical or talmudic justification for that
> notion.
Well, Jesus was it, but wouldn't say so.
wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > On Oct 14, 11:41 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> It was. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Chabad-Lubavitch
> >> movement, who died in 1994. I remember it being a controversy when he
> >> died, as most (I believe) of the Lubavitchers decided, along with the
> >> rest of the Jews that since he actually died he must not, in fact,
> >> have been the messiah. (Something I don't believe he was ever
> >> supposed to have claimed to have been, but nor did he vigorously
> >> deny.)
>
> > Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah (at least according to what is
> > recorded of his deeds and words), and sidestepped the question when it
> > was placed directly.
>
> Right. By the words preserved in the New Testament, he seems to have
> seen himself as preparing the way for the "Son of Man". He also, like
> Schneerson, died before doing the things the messiah was expected to
> do.
>
> > It could be that claiming the position disqualifies one from it.
>
> I don't think I've seen biblical or talmudic justification for that
> notion.
Well, Jesus was it, but wouldn't say so.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 4:27:50 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 1:40 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> > For someone who claims to be a Jew, your mastery of Jesuitical
> > argumentation style is astounding.
>
> Yes, it's definitely surprising that a Jew would argue.
What surprises me is that a Jew would argue dishonestly.
> > I will not dignify such deliberate misinterpretations and
> > misrepresentations with a response.
>
> I'm not surprising.
How true.
But will it dissuade you from such tactics, or techniques, in the
future?
> > For someone who claims to be a Jew, your mastery of Jesuitical
> > argumentation style is astounding.
>
> Yes, it's definitely surprising that a Jew would argue.
What surprises me is that a Jew would argue dishonestly.
> > I will not dignify such deliberate misinterpretations and
> > misrepresentations with a response.
>
> I'm not surprising.
How true.
But will it dissuade you from such tactics, or techniques, in the
future?
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 4:31:48 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 2:42 pm, Snidely <snidely....@gmail.com> wrote:
> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote on 10/12/2012 :
>
> > And let's not forget that "bathing suit" (= swimsuit) is still known
> > to at least some living North Americans.
>
> Still seems to be common to me, although swimsuit leads the way. Board
> shorts have increased in popularity, even among those who don't surf.
> But there are still reference to swim trunks and sometimes bathing
swimming trunks
>
> > And let's not forget that "bathing suit" (= swimsuit) is still known
> > to at least some living North Americans.
>
> Still seems to be common to me, although swimsuit leads the way. Board
> shorts have increased in popularity, even among those who don't surf.
> But there are still reference to swim trunks and sometimes bathing
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 4:33:14 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 2:12 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:07:14 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 13, 5:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2012-10-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> too good for the working class in this socialist republic.
You sound like romney.
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:07:14 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 13, 5:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2012-10-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 13, 2:39 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> Yes. The plural "swimming baths" was probably the dominant form; I
> >> >> think that was because earlier ones had real bathrooms - I remember
> >> >> reading of a case in maybe the 'seventies in which a Council finally
> >> >> built an old man a bathroom at home because he was the last customer
> >> >> keeping the public bath open.
>
> >> > Again, misinterpretable, since "bathroom" is the name of the room
> >> > containing a sink, a toilet, and a bathtub (shower stall). A luxurious
> >> > one these days can contain a jacuzzi, which is what that fellow might
> >> > have received?
>
> Oh, I have no doubt that a jacuzzi would have been included: nothing's
> >> > On Oct 13, 2:39 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> Yes. The plural "swimming baths" was probably the dominant form; I
> >> >> think that was because earlier ones had real bathrooms - I remember
> >> >> reading of a case in maybe the 'seventies in which a Council finally
> >> >> built an old man a bathroom at home because he was the last customer
> >> >> keeping the public bath open.
>
> >> > Again, misinterpretable, since "bathroom" is the name of the room
> >> > containing a sink, a toilet, and a bathtub (shower stall). A luxurious
> >> > one these days can contain a jacuzzi, which is what that fellow might
> >> > have received?
>
> too good for the working class in this socialist republic.
You sound like romney.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 14, 2012, 4:35:20 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 2:37 pm, Snidely <snidely....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tak To explained :
>
> > On 10/12/2012 8:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Oct 11, 6:05 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> This is interesting. Is the word "unclean" used here because English
> >>> has no precise word for "ritually impure", or because Hebrew uses the
> >>> same word for both secular and religious uncleanness?
>
> >> Was there a concept of "dirtiness"? Bathing to get grime off is a
> >> fairly recent concept in much of the world,
>
> > I would say bathing _regularly_ to get grime off
> > is a recent concept, not bathing itself.
>
> One of the reasons for the disappearance of the Essene sect is that
> they located their bathing pool downstream of their latrines.
There were no "streams" for them to be "down" of ... latrines weren't
> Tak To explained :
>
> > On 10/12/2012 8:51 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Oct 11, 6:05 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> This is interesting. Is the word "unclean" used here because English
> >>> has no precise word for "ritually impure", or because Hebrew uses the
> >>> same word for both secular and religious uncleanness?
>
> >> Was there a concept of "dirtiness"? Bathing to get grime off is a
> >> fairly recent concept in much of the world,
>
> > I would say bathing _regularly_ to get grime off
> > is a recent concept, not bathing itself.
>
> One of the reasons for the disappearance of the Essene sect is that
> they located their bathing pool downstream of their latrines.
irrigated.
> Didn't the Roman's bathe regularly, although perhaps not as early as
> the writing of the Torah?
Cheryl
Oct 14, 2012, 4:57:09 PM10/14/12
to
--
Cheryl
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oct 14, 2012, 5:21:51 PM10/14/12
to
colossal, and super colossal. Colossal olives are approximately 24-26
mm in diameter and 41-50 per pound. Nuts and onions also come in
"colossal" (but not "super colossal").
But those aren't separate species, just an indication of how big they
are.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The purpose of writing is to inflate
SF Bay Area (1982-) |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning,
Chicago (1964-1982) |and inhibit clarity. With a little
|practice, writing can be an
evan.kir...@gmail.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog!
| Calvin
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
tony cooper
Oct 14, 2012, 5:36:55 PM10/14/12
to
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:08:07 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 12:04:52 -0700 (PDT), "benl...@ihug.co.nz"
>> <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>I love that name. Presumably because there was already a "giant" squid
>>>and this one was even bigger. I wonder if there are any other species
>>>officially called "colossal"?
>>
>> Not "colossal", but the epinephelus itajara has long been called the
>> "Jewfish", but is now called the Goliath Grouper.
>
>They couldn't have gone with "David"?
>
>What's the local explanation for the old name?
Never heard a local try to explain.
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 12:04:52 -0700 (PDT), "benl...@ihug.co.nz"
>> <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>I love that name. Presumably because there was already a "giant" squid
>>>and this one was even bigger. I wonder if there are any other species
>>>officially called "colossal"?
>>
>> Not "colossal", but the epinephelus itajara has long been called the
>> "Jewfish", but is now called the Goliath Grouper.
>
>They couldn't have gone with "David"?
>
>What's the local explanation for the old name?
The OED, which defines
>it as "a name given to various fishes, chiefly of the family
>
> 1697 W. Dampier _New Voy. around World_ ix. 249 The Jew-fish is
> a very good Fish, and I judge so called by the English
> because it hath Scales and Fins, therefore a clean Fish
> according to the Levitical Law.
>
>but it seems unlikely that that was unusual enough among English fish
>to be the actual origin.
>
>> Fascinating fish, by the way. I've seen one when scuba diving.
>> Unbelievably large.
>>
>> Also up for change is the unincorporated community in Monroe County,
>> Florida (the county that includes the Florida Keys) named Jewfish,
>> Florida. Residents of that area are against any change.
--
> 1697 W. Dampier _New Voy. around World_ ix. 249 The Jew-fish is
> a very good Fish, and I judge so called by the English
> because it hath Scales and Fins, therefore a clean Fish
> according to the Levitical Law.
>
>but it seems unlikely that that was unusual enough among English fish
>to be the actual origin.
>
>> Fascinating fish, by the way. I've seen one when scuba diving.
>> Unbelievably large.
>>
>> Also up for change is the unincorporated community in Monroe County,
>> Florida (the county that includes the Florida Keys) named Jewfish,
>> Florida. Residents of that area are against any change.
--
Skitt
Oct 14, 2012, 6:07:51 PM10/14/12
to
Cheryl wrote:
> Skitt wrote:
>> Ever hear of a girl taking a PTA bath before going on a date?
>
> No, that term seems to have escaped me.
>
Pussy, tits, and ass.
>> Ever hear of a girl taking a PTA bath before going on a date?
>
> No, that term seems to have escaped me.
>
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Oct 14, 2012, 6:28:13 PM10/14/12
to
Puerile Petey T. Daniels wrote:
>
> You sound like romney.
>
ObAUE: That's *R*omney, you microcephalic motherfucker.
--
~~~ Reinhold {"Rindhole"} Aman ~~~
>
> You sound like romney.
>
ObAUE: That's *R*omney, you microcephalic motherfucker.
--
~~~ Reinhold {"Rindhole"} Aman ~~~
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Oct 14, 2012, 7:20:22 PM10/14/12
to
right? I don't think we've got beyond "giant" here. How does the size
terminology go where you live?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Oct 14, 2012, 8:01:03 PM10/14/12
to
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 20:49:03 +0200, Lanarcam <lana...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>Le 14/10/2012 20:42, Mike L a �crit :
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 12:21:17 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> Browne used "flammability" and "inflammability" with the same meaning
>>>> in _Vulgar Errors_ (1646). OED has no record of "flammability" between
>>>> 1669 and 1942.
>>>
>>> They will almost certainly revise that. John Walker's 1838 _Critical
>>> Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language_ defines
>>> "flammability" as "the quality of admitting to be set on fire". And
>>> Henry Todd's 1836 _Johnson's Dictionary, Improved by Todd_ defines it
>>> as "an aptness to take fire". An 1832 _Dictionary of the Welsh
>>> Language_ gives it as the translation for "fflamlydrwydd". The 1829
>>> _London Encyclopaedia_ says
>>>
>>> flammation is the act of inflaming, or causing to flame:
>>> flammability, the being possible, or likely, to blaze out.
>>
>> Ah. Good to have these gaps filled.
>>>
>>>> The gap for literal "inflammability" is from 1674 to 1831, but one
>>>> of Jefferson's letters has a figurative use in 1787.
>>>
>>> Tons of them in Google Books.
>>
>> I wish I could get myself into the GB habit.
>>
>But, are you not already a Great Briton?
While Mike L. is thinking of a witty reply here's a fact: he is an
Australian immigrant to Britain.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
>Le 14/10/2012 20:42, Mike L a �crit :
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 12:21:17 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> Browne used "flammability" and "inflammability" with the same meaning
>>>> in _Vulgar Errors_ (1646). OED has no record of "flammability" between
>>>> 1669 and 1942.
>>>
>>> They will almost certainly revise that. John Walker's 1838 _Critical
>>> Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language_ defines
>>> "flammability" as "the quality of admitting to be set on fire". And
>>> Henry Todd's 1836 _Johnson's Dictionary, Improved by Todd_ defines it
>>> as "an aptness to take fire". An 1832 _Dictionary of the Welsh
>>> Language_ gives it as the translation for "fflamlydrwydd". The 1829
>>> _London Encyclopaedia_ says
>>>
>>> flammation is the act of inflaming, or causing to flame:
>>> flammability, the being possible, or likely, to blaze out.
>>
>> Ah. Good to have these gaps filled.
>>>
>>>> The gap for literal "inflammability" is from 1674 to 1831, but one
>>>> of Jefferson's letters has a figurative use in 1787.
>>>
>>> Tons of them in Google Books.
>>
>> I wish I could get myself into the GB habit.
>>
>But, are you not already a Great Briton?
While Mike L. is thinking of a witty reply here's a fact: he is an
Australian immigrant to Britain.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Oct 14, 2012, 8:10:40 PM10/14/12
to
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:42:22 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote on 10/12/2012 :
>
>> And let's not forget that "bathing suit" (= swimsuit) is still known
>> to at least some living North Americans.
>
>Still seems to be common to me, although swimsuit leads the way. Board
>shorts have increased in popularity, even among those who don't surf.
>But there are still reference to swim trunks and sometimes bathing
Etymology: < Latin trunca-re: see truncate v.
trans. To cut a part off from; to cut short, truncate; to lop, clip,
prune.
c1440 Pallad. on Husb. iv. 86 Ek summe her aged vynes wole
repare, And trunke hem of al hie abouen grounde.
....
1611 R. Cotgrave Dict. French & Eng. Tongues, Troncation, a
truncation, trunking, mutilation, cutting off.
Then:
trunk-hose, n.
a. Full bag-like breeches covering the hips and upper thighs, and
sometimes stuffed with wool or the like, worn in the 16th and
early 17th c.
Leading to:
trunk, n.
17. pl.
†a. = trunk-hose n. Obs.
1582 Rates Custome House (new ed.) sig. Fj, Truncks the dosen
xii.s.
....
b. Short breeches of silk or other thin material; in theatrical use,
often worn over tights; in quot. 1896 applied to ordinary
breeches or knickerbockers.
1825 W. Hone Every-day Bk. (1826) I. 1463 Theatrical ‘trunks’,
or short breeches.
1836 Dickens Pickwick Papers (1837) xv. 152 The appearance of
Mr. Snodgrass in blue satin trunks and cloak, white silk tights
and shoes, and Grecian helmet.
....
c. orig. U.S. Short tight-fitting drawers worn by swimmers and
athletes. swimming trunks: ...
1883 Pall Mall Gaz. 26 July 7/1 Captain Webb attempted his
perilous feat of swimming the Niagara Rapids... He wore a pair of
silk trunks.
wrote:
>benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote on 10/12/2012 :
>
>> And let's not forget that "bathing suit" (= swimsuit) is still known
>> to at least some living North Americans.
>
>Still seems to be common to me, although swimsuit leads the way. Board
>shorts have increased in popularity, even among those who don't surf.
>But there are still reference to swim trunks and sometimes bathing
>trunks resurfaces. Which reminds me of my question, why "trunks"?
>Does this go back to Tudor fashions?
>
According to the OED it seems to go back to the verb "trunk, v.1":
>Does this go back to Tudor fashions?
>
Etymology: < Latin trunca-re: see truncate v.
trans. To cut a part off from; to cut short, truncate; to lop, clip,
prune.
c1440 Pallad. on Husb. iv. 86 Ek summe her aged vynes wole
repare, And trunke hem of al hie abouen grounde.
....
1611 R. Cotgrave Dict. French & Eng. Tongues, Troncation, a
truncation, trunking, mutilation, cutting off.
Then:
trunk-hose, n.
a. Full bag-like breeches covering the hips and upper thighs, and
sometimes stuffed with wool or the like, worn in the 16th and
early 17th c.
Leading to:
trunk, n.
17. pl.
†a. = trunk-hose n. Obs.
1582 Rates Custome House (new ed.) sig. Fj, Truncks the dosen
xii.s.
....
b. Short breeches of silk or other thin material; in theatrical use,
often worn over tights; in quot. 1896 applied to ordinary
breeches or knickerbockers.
1825 W. Hone Every-day Bk. (1826) I. 1463 Theatrical ‘trunks’,
or short breeches.
1836 Dickens Pickwick Papers (1837) xv. 152 The appearance of
Mr. Snodgrass in blue satin trunks and cloak, white silk tights
and shoes, and Grecian helmet.
....
c. orig. U.S. Short tight-fitting drawers worn by swimmers and
athletes. swimming trunks: ...
1883 Pall Mall Gaz. 26 July 7/1 Captain Webb attempted his
perilous feat of swimming the Niagara Rapids... He wore a pair of
silk trunks.
DKleinecke
Oct 14, 2012, 8:15:30 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 7:49 am, Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-10-14, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 14, 4:43 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> >> Am 14.10.2012 10:17, schrieb Yusuf B Gursey:
>
> >> > On Oct 14, 4:10 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> >> >> Am 14.10.2012 01:09, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> >> >>> On Oct 13, 5:08 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>> All three? How's your Greek?
>
> >> >>>> Three?
>
> >> >>> What have we been talking about in Daniel (and Ezra, and one verse in
> >> >>> Jeremiah and two words in Genesis, or is it Exodus)?
>
> >> >> I read that after I had posted that question. That there are Aramaic
> >> >> parts in some of the books was news to me.
>
> >> >> Joachim
>
> >> > it was on this thread previously that the "hand writing" passage was
> >> > in Aramaic.
>
> >> I did not read all of this monster-thread carefully. Was only the
>
> > lot of things going on, but it has aroused my interest.
>
> >> hand-writing (i. e., the quotation) in Aramaic, or the narrative as well?
>
> > the whole narrative is in Aramaic; Daniel 2:4–7:28 is in Aramaic, the
> > narrative is the beginning of Daniel 5. it is a minor mystery as to
> > why the king couldn't understand it and had to call Daniel, as Aramaic
> > was current in the setting.
>
> The inscription was cryptic, and the king didn't accept other attempts at
> extracting meaning from it. Daniel had established a reputation for
> interpreting the dreams of the king's father. It may also be that only
> Daniel had the courage to reveal the meaning, the other advisors fearing
> the death penalty if they angered the king with their interpretations;
> safer to claim ignorance than be too clever for their own good.
>
> --
> -- ^^^^^^^^^^
> -- Whiskers
> -- ~~~~~~~~~~
I remain amazed that people talk about this obvious piece of folklore
as though it were a historical event. The whole book of Daniel is
clear fiction concocted at a later date. The first part maybe as late
as 250 BCE and the later half (the prophecies) in Maccabean days (as
has been known since antiquity). There is an excellent discussion in
the Anchor Bible - but the matter is treated in lots of other places..
> On 2012-10-14, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 14, 4:43 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> >> Am 14.10.2012 10:17, schrieb Yusuf B Gursey:
>
> >> > On Oct 14, 4:10 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> >> >> Am 14.10.2012 01:09, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> >> >>> On Oct 13, 5:08 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> >> >>>> Am 13.10.2012 22:09, schrieb Adam Funk:
>
> >> >>>>> On 2012-10-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>> Education! Everyone should learn the original languages!
>
> >> >>>>> On 2012-10-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>
> >> >>>>> All three? How's your Greek?
>
> >> >>>> Three?
>
> >> >>> What have we been talking about in Daniel (and Ezra, and one verse in
> >> >>> Jeremiah and two words in Genesis, or is it Exodus)?
>
> >> >> I read that after I had posted that question. That there are Aramaic
> >> >> parts in some of the books was news to me.
>
> >> >> Joachim
>
> >> > it was on this thread previously that the "hand writing" passage was
> >> > in Aramaic.
>
> >> I did not read all of this monster-thread carefully. Was only the
>
> > lot of things going on, but it has aroused my interest.
>
> >> hand-writing (i. e., the quotation) in Aramaic, or the narrative as well?
>
> > the whole narrative is in Aramaic; Daniel 2:4–7:28 is in Aramaic, the
> > narrative is the beginning of Daniel 5. it is a minor mystery as to
> > why the king couldn't understand it and had to call Daniel, as Aramaic
> > was current in the setting.
>
> The inscription was cryptic, and the king didn't accept other attempts at
> extracting meaning from it. Daniel had established a reputation for
> interpreting the dreams of the king's father. It may also be that only
> Daniel had the courage to reveal the meaning, the other advisors fearing
> the death penalty if they angered the king with their interpretations;
> safer to claim ignorance than be too clever for their own good.
>
> --
> -- ^^^^^^^^^^
> -- Whiskers
> -- ~~~~~~~~~~
I remain amazed that people talk about this obvious piece of folklore
as though it were a historical event. The whole book of Daniel is
clear fiction concocted at a later date. The first part maybe as late
as 250 BCE and the later half (the prophecies) in Maccabean days (as
has been known since antiquity). There is an excellent discussion in
the Anchor Bible - but the matter is treated in lots of other places..
DKleinecke
Oct 14, 2012, 8:24:25 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 8:31 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > On Oct 14, 3:16 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> >> > ?? Every block holds the worshippers of a different rebbe. How many
> >> > of them claim that theirs is the Messiah?
>
> >> I doubt that you'd get many of them to describe their relationship
> >> with their rebbe as "worshipping them". (If you just meant
> >> "worshippers of God who follow different rebbes", there's nothing
> >> unusual about that.)
>
> > How they "describe their relationship" need not have anything to do
> > with their actual relationship.
The meaning of worship is not universally agreed upon. I would say
that any act of prayer to an unseable entity is worship. That would
mean one cannot worship a living person - a conclusion I accept.
But, by this definition, Catholics worship their saints - not to
mention the Virgin. In fact Catholics even worship pre-saints they
hope will be canonized because of the miracles they work in response
to prayer.
So far as I know Protestants do not pray to anyone except Jesus or God
the Father. I find the lack of prayer to the Holy Spirit quite odd.
wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > On Oct 14, 3:16 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> >> > ?? Every block holds the worshippers of a different rebbe. How many
> >> > of them claim that theirs is the Messiah?
>
> >> I doubt that you'd get many of them to describe their relationship
> >> with their rebbe as "worshipping them". (If you just meant
> >> "worshippers of God who follow different rebbes", there's nothing
> >> unusual about that.)
>
> > How they "describe their relationship" need not have anything to do
> > with their actual relationship.
The meaning of worship is not universally agreed upon. I would say
that any act of prayer to an unseable entity is worship. That would
mean one cannot worship a living person - a conclusion I accept.
But, by this definition, Catholics worship their saints - not to
mention the Virgin. In fact Catholics even worship pre-saints they
hope will be canonized because of the miracles they work in response
to prayer.
So far as I know Protestants do not pray to anyone except Jesus or God
the Father. I find the lack of prayer to the Holy Spirit quite odd.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages