Back from the islands
Harry Mary Andruschak
Anyhow...Mary and I have been island hopping. Greece has an exstensive
system of feries to and from the many inhabited islands. Ferry to an
island, stay a night or three, and move on .From the port in Rafinna
to Andros, Tinos, Saros (3 nights), Tinos, Andros, and back to the
port of Rafina. Several days of relaxing vacation.
The highlight on Tinos was the visit to the Marian Shrine Of The
Annunciation, with a centuries old icon on display. Saros, where we
stayed three nights, was a mixture of Orthodox and Catholic
spirituality, as well as great hiking, wonderfull views, delicious
food and friendly people.
One thing I have noted in Greece are the cats that are allowed to
wander in and out of restaurants, cafes, and coffee shops. Organic
rodent control.
Today GOOGLE news informed me that flights to and from the UK have
been cancelled due to volcanic ash, and the ash has spread southeast,
shutting down airports in Germany and Austria. Hopefully this problem
will not prevent my flight back to the USA via London on 21 April.
Kip Williams
> And why "islands" instead of "ilands"?
Some place on the internet sez:
'Island, spelled iland, first appears in Old English in King Alfred's
translation of Boethius about a.d. 888; the spellings igland and ealond
appear in contemporary documents. The s in island is due to a mistaken
etymology, confusing the etymologically correct English iland with
French isle. Isle comes ultimately from Latin nsula "island," a
component of paennsula, "almost-island," whence our peninsula.'
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/island
(Partial words are because some goofy characters dropped out. Sadly,
they will probably be on the dole for the rest of their lives. Stay in
school, kids! I don't feel like trying to put them back in, but have
provided a URL for anybody who wants to see the entry and the "word
history" paragraph I got this from, provided they have a computer and
all that.)
Kip W
Paul Dormer
<b8a47ba5-3912-4c90...@s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
adopts...@aol.com (Harry Mary Andruschak) wrote:
>
> Today GOOGLE news informed me that flights to and from the UK have
> been cancelled due to volcanic ash, and the ash has spread southeast,
> shutting down airports in Germany and Austria. Hopefully this problem
> will not prevent my flight back to the USA via London on 21 April.
The travel editor of The Independent had a piece in today about how he
got back from Norway by cargo ship, due in to Immingham at 4:00 a.m.
Saturday. "Now that's a sentence I never thought I would write," he
concludes.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/simon-calder-the-domino-
effect-from-our-transport-hubs-1946457.html
Cryptoengineer
wrote:
> And why "islands" instead of "ilands"?
>
> Anyhow...Mary and I have been island hopping. Greece has an exstensive
> system of feries to and from the many inhabited islands. Ferry to an
> island, stay a night or three, and move on .From the port in Rafinna
> to Andros, Tinos, Saros (3 nights), Tinos, Andros, and back to the
> port of Rafina. Several days of relaxing vacation.
>
> The highlight on Tinos was the visit to the Marian Shrine Of The
> Annunciation, with a centuries old icon on display. Saros, where we
> stayed three nights, was a mixture of Orthodox and Catholic
> spirituality, as well as great hiking, wonderfull views, delicious
> food and friendly people.
It sounds like you've had a wonderful vacation. Thanks for keeping us
up to date.
> One thing I have noted in Greece are the cats that are allowed to
> wander in and out of restaurants, cafes, and coffee shops. Organic
> rodent control.
I remember this in Belgium too, but 30 years ago.
> Today GOOGLE news informed me that flights to and from the UK have
> been cancelled due to volcanic ash, and the ash has spread southeast,
> shutting down airports in Germany and Austria. Hopefully this problem
> will not prevent my flight back to the USA via London on 21 April.
From what I heard on the BBC this morning, the eruption is slackening
a bit. But I'll note that in 1821, this volcano erupted over a year.
About 2/3 of trans-Atlantic flights are cancelled at the moment.
One issue is that Eyjafjallajokull eruptions are often precursors for
Katla, which is much bigger, blowing its top. Volcanism in Iceland has
led, in historic times, to such events as the Mississippi freezing at
New Orleans.
pt
Dorothy J Heydt
Because there was a period in in language study when it was
assumed that every other language was just a degenerate form of
Latin. This is what led to the rules e.g. that you mustn't
split an infinitive (because in Latin an infinitive is one word)
nor end a sentence with a preposition (because in Latin you just
can't do that, pre-positions go BEFORE nouns). And at that same
period it was assumed that "island" was derived from Latin
_insula_. It wasn't; the earlier form was "ey-lond" where "ey"
means "island" all by itself, as it still does in e.g. Icelandic.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Nate Edel
> The travel editor of The Independent had a piece in today about how he
> got back from Norway by cargo ship, due in to Immingham at 4:00 a.m.
> Saturday. "Now that's a sentence I never thought I would write," he
> concludes.
He also writes:
"A volcanic cloud has succeeded in doing what terrorists, snow and strikers
failed to achieve: close the skies over Britain."
Clearly, what we need is a war on volcanos.
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It's obscenity. I'm
posting domain | for it."
Harry Mary Andruschak
Starting with the Yellowstone Caldara?
Tim Illingworth
wrote:
>Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>> The travel editor of The Independent had a piece in today about how he
>> got back from Norway by cargo ship, due in to Immingham at 4:00 a.m.
>> Saturday. "Now that's a sentence I never thought I would write," he
>> concludes.
>
>He also writes:
>"A volcanic cloud has succeeded in doing what terrorists, snow and strikers
>failed to achieve: close the skies over Britain."
>
>Clearly, what we need is a war on volcanos.
Nuke 'em till they glow; that'll fix the problem...
Tim
Paul Dormer
(Nate Edel) wrote:
>
> He also writes:
> "A volcanic cloud has succeeded in doing what terrorists, snow and
> strikers failed to achieve: close the skies over Britain."
>
> Clearly, what we need is a war on volcanos.
I like the suggestion that following the banking collapse, we'd asked
Iceland for our cash back. Unfortunately, the Icelandic alphabet doesn't
have the letter 'c' in it.
Morris Keesan
wrote:
> I like the suggestion that following the banking collapse, we'd asked
> Iceland for our cash back. Unfortunately, the Icelandic alphabet doesn't
> have the letter 'c' in it.
Shouldn't that be "the Ielandi alphabet"?
--
Morris Keesan -- mke...@post.harvard.edu
Keith F. Lynch
> And at that same period it was assumed that "island" was derived
> from Latin _insula_. It wasn't; the earlier form was "ey-lond"
> where "ey" means "island" all by itself, as it still does in
> e.g. Icelandic.
Ironically, in Icelandic, Iceland is spelled "Island."
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
> Partial words are because some goofy characters dropped out. Sadly,
> they will probably be on the dole for the rest of their lives.
If there are 256 characters, and fewer jobs for characters than that,
then staying in school may change which characters appear on your
screen, but won't change how many do. In other words "no character
left behind" is just a big, expensive, game of musical chairs.
ObFandom: It's as if a Worldcon doesn't have enough seating for
everyone who wants to watch the Hugo ceremony. So it "solves" the
problem be telling every fan to be sure to get in line early so
they'll be sure to get a seat.
Paul Dormer
(Morris Keesan) wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:30:00 -0400, Paul Dormer
> <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I like the suggestion that following the banking collapse, we'd asked
> > Iceland for our cash back. Unfortunately, the Icelandic alphabet
> > doesn't have the letter 'c' in it.
>
> Shouldn't that be "the Ielandi alphabet"?
Reminds me of a sketch on a TV programme called KYTV back in the nineties
(which was based on an eighties radio series called Radio Active).
They were having a round Europe quiz in which the questionmaster was very
anti Europe.
"So, Maria, spell the name of your country."
"I T A L I A"
"Nearly right, Maria. It actually ends in a Y. Now, Pierre, spell the
name of your country."
"F R A N C Uh"
"Again, nearly right. There's no such letter as Uh. Hans, spell the
name of your country.
"D E U..."
Harry Mary Andruschak
> In article <op.vbbaloct5qv6o3@toshiba-laptop>, mkee...@post.harvard.edu
Harry Andruschak, how do you spell the name of the country that you
are in right now?
H E L L A S
Doug Wickström
I think you've missed the joke. Europe is getting it's cash
back, minus "C." In other words, getting its _ash_ back.
--
Doug Wickström
Dorothy J Heydt
Well, actually the Greeks would spell it with a little
apostrophe-thing called "rough breathing" instead of a letter H.
Keith F. Lynch
> are in right now?
> H E L L A S
Wouldn't you spell it in a different alphabet? Thanks for not doing
so, since half of us would see it as question marks, backslashes,
equal signs, and octal or hexadecimal digits.
Keith F. Lynch
> Reminds me of a sketch on a TV programme called KYTV back in the
> nineties (which was based on an eighties radio series called Radio
> Active).
> They were having a round Europe quiz in which the questionmaster
> was very anti Europe.
I still think it's weird that in UK usage, the UK doesn't consider
itself part of Europe.
If someone asks me whether I've ever been to Europe, I should answer
yes if I'm talking to an American, no if I'm talking to an Englishman?
Jette Goldie
> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>> Reminds me of a sketch on a TV programme called KYTV back in the
>> nineties (which was based on an eighties radio series called Radio
>> Active).
>
>> They were having a round Europe quiz in which the questionmaster
>> was very anti Europe.
>
> I still think it's weird that in UK usage, the UK doesn't consider
> itself part of Europe.
>
> If someone asks me whether I've ever been to Europe, I should answer
> yes if I'm talking to an American, no if I'm talking to an Englishman?
Depends on whether you count the continental shelf, the continental
mainland, or the community of countries known as "Europe". Great
Britain is a group of islands on the European continental shelf but
not part of the continental mainland. This has historically kept it
isolated from the culture of "the Continent". We're european but not
European.
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Dan Goodman
> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> > Reminds me of a sketch on a TV programme called KYTV back in the
> > nineties (which was based on an eighties radio series called Radio
> > Active).
>
> > They were having a round Europe quiz in which the questionmaster
> > was very anti Europe.
>
> I still think it's weird that in UK usage, the UK doesn't consider
> itself part of Europe.
Obviously, it's because the UK has never been successfully invaded from
Europe; and none of its languages include any loanwords from any
language of Continental Europe.
>
> If someone asks me whether I've ever been to Europe, I should answer
> yes if I'm talking to an American, no if I'm talking to an Englishman?
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers"
A Streetcar Named Expire
http://dsgood.dreamwidth.com
http://dsgood.livejournal.com
http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
Dan Goodman
> Great Britain is a group of islands on the European continental shelf
> but not part of the continental mainland. This has historically kept
> it isolated from the culture of "the Continent".
Well, sort of.
Linguistically, not very. Politically, there's been wide variance in
practical political ties but close intellectual ties.
It's not _quite_ as inaccurate as "America wins all its wars, without
any real help from anyone else after the Revolution."
Dorothy J Heydt
Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>Jette Goldie wrote:
>
>> Great Britain is a group of islands on the European continental shelf
>> but not part of the continental mainland. This has historically kept
>> it isolated from the culture of "the Continent".
>
>Well, sort of.
>
>Linguistically, not very. Politically, there's been wide variance in
>practical political ties but close intellectual ties.
>
>It's not _quite_ as inaccurate as "America wins all its wars, without
>any real help from anyone else after the Revolution."
Rather like the unstated theme of _Victory at Sea_, which was
"How the US Navy won World War II with a little help from its
friends, such as the Royal Navy and the US Marines."
Dorothy J Heydt
Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>
>> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Reminds me of a sketch on a TV programme called KYTV back in the
>> > nineties (which was based on an eighties radio series called Radio
>> > Active).
>>
>> > They were having a round Europe quiz in which the questionmaster
>> > was very anti Europe.
>>
>> I still think it's weird that in UK usage, the UK doesn't consider
>> itself part of Europe.
>
>Obviously, it's because the UK has never been successfully invaded from
>Europe;
Well, not recently anyway.
Keith F. Lynch
> the US Navy won World War II with a little help from its friends,
> such as the Royal Navy and the US Marines."
Better than in Russia, where kids were (still are?) taught that the
USSR beat Germany and Japan all by itself. If the US is mentioned at
all, it's implied that it fought on the side of the Nazis. Certainly
it's never taught that the USSR was originally on the Nazis' side, and
switched sides in the middle of the war. (To be fair, they did have a
very good reason for switching.)
Keith F. Lynch
>> Obviously, it's because the UK has never been successfully invaded
>> from Europe;
> Well, not recently anyway.
Are there any big plans for the thousandth anniversary of the last
successful invasion?
Dan Goodman
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> > Rather like the unstated theme of _Victory at Sea_, which was "How
> > the US Navy won World War II with a little help from its friends,
> > such as the Royal Navy and the US Marines."
>
> Better than in Russia, where kids were (still are?) taught that the
> USSR beat Germany and Japan all by itself. If the US is mentioned at
> all, it's implied that it fought on the side of the Nazis. Certainly
> it's never taught that the USSR was originally on the Nazis' side, and
> switched sides in the middle of the war. (To be fair, they did have a
> very good reason for switching.)
Even paranoids have real enemies -- those are the people they trust.
It's been said that Hitler was the only man Stalin ever trusted.
Keith F. Lynch
> It's been said that Hitler was the only man Stalin ever trusted.
That makes sense, since they thought so much alike.
ObSF: In Niven & Pournelle's _Escape From Hell_, the sequel to
their _Inferno_, Hitler and Stalin are together again at last.
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > It's been said that Hitler was the only man Stalin ever trusted.
>
> That makes sense, since they thought so much alike.
>
> ObSF: In Niven & Pournelle's _Escape From Hell_, the sequel to
> their Inferno, Hitler and Stalin are together again at last.
I would like to see them write _Escape From Heaven_.
Dorothy J Heydt
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>> Obviously, it's because the UK has never been successfully invaded
>>> from Europe;
>
>> Well, not recently anyway.
>
>Are there any big plans for the thousandth anniversary of the last
>successful invasion?
Not that I've heard of. But it would be fifty-some years from
now. Consider how few people are around now to celebrate events
of fifty-some years ago.
Dorothy J Heydt
Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> > Rather like the unstated theme of _Victory at Sea_, which was "How
>> > the US Navy won World War II with a little help from its friends,
>> > such as the Royal Navy and the US Marines."
>>
>> Better than in Russia, where kids were (still are?) taught that the
>> USSR beat Germany and Japan all by itself. If the US is mentioned at
>> all, it's implied that it fought on the side of the Nazis. Certainly
>> it's never taught that the USSR was originally on the Nazis' side, and
>> switched sides in the middle of the war. (To be fair, they did have a
>> very good reason for switching.)
>
>Even paranoids have real enemies -- those are the people they trust.
>It's been said that Hitler was the only man Stalin ever trusted.
Well, you'll remember that Churchill said Russia was "a riddle,
wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a
key. That key is Russian national interest." Which is sort of
like saying he trusted the Russians to behave like Russians.
Keith F. Lynch
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Are there any big plans for the thousandth anniversary of the last
>> successful invasion?
> Not that I've heard of. But it would be fifty-some years from now.
> Consider how few people are around now to celebrate events of
> fifty-some years ago.
Good point. Too bad fans aren't in charge. Remember that "Let's do
it again in 2010" originated in 1958. That's almost as far in out
past as 2066 is in our future.
Am I the only time-binding fan disappointed that this year's Worldcon
is not in Southgate, California? Of course the '58 Worldcon wasn't
really, either. Perhaps the mayor of Melbourne can be convinced to
proclaim the site of this year's Worldcon to be Southgate, as the
mayor of Los Angeles did 52 years ago. Certainly Melbourne has a
greater right to the term "south" than anything north of the menagerie
lion that runs around the Earth.
Morris Keesan
wrote:
We got the joke. I was making a different one.
And by the way, the possessive form of "it" has no apostrophe.
Dorothy J Heydt
Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>
>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> > It's been said that Hitler was the only man Stalin ever trusted.
>>
>> That makes sense, since they thought so much alike.
>>
>> ObSF: In Niven & Pournelle's _Escape From Hell_, the sequel to
>> their Inferno, Hitler and Stalin are together again at last.
>
>I would like to see them write _Escape From Heaven_.
I asked Jerry Pournelle once when they were going to do
Purgatory, and he pointed out that their Hell was a lot more like
Purgatory. Since, as John Ciardi pointed out, Dante's "Purgatory
is like a modern junior college: no one can flunk out of it."
See Lewis's _The Great Divorce_ for why getting out of Heaven is
more complicated than you might think.
For that matter, when Beatrice wanted to warn Dante that he was
in danger, she couldn't simply descend to the Dark Wood and tell
him so. He was so far gone that he couldn't see her. She had to
descend further, into Limbo, and ask Virgil to carry the message.
Dorothy J Heydt
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Are there any big plans for the thousandth anniversary of the last
>>> successful invasion?
>
>> Not that I've heard of. But it would be fifty-some years from now.
>> Consider how few people are around now to celebrate events of
>> fifty-some years ago.
>
>Good point. Too bad fans aren't in charge. Remember that "Let's do
>it again in 2010" originated in 1958. That's almost as far in out
>past as 2066 is in our future.
>
>Am I the only time-binding fan disappointed that this year's Worldcon
>is not in Southgate, California? Of course the '58 Worldcon wasn't
>really, either.
I just must not be fannish enough; I'm missing this. Why should
this year's Worldcon be in Southgate? I was alive in 1958; I was
even reading SF; but it wasn't till 1967 that I got to a con.
Morris Keesan
wrote:
> Am I the only time-binding fan disappointed that this year's Worldcon
> is not in Southgate, California? Of course the '58 Worldcon wasn't
> really, either. Perhaps the mayor of Melbourne can be convinced to
> proclaim the site of this year's Worldcon to be Southgate, as the
> mayor of Los Angeles did 52 years ago. Certainly Melbourne has a
> greater right to the term "south" than anything north of the menagerie
> lion that runs around the Earth.
I believe that the Aussiecon 4 committee is aware of the "Southgate again
in 2010" slogan, and they appear to have it covered. Southgate Ave. is
about a kilometre from the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre, by
foot, walking alongside the Yarra River. I wouldn't be at all surprised if
there's a walk to Southgate, arranged by some fans of a fanhistorical turn
of mind, especially since there's what seems to be a nice Chinese
restaurant in the Southgate Shopping Centre.
Ben Yalow
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>> Obviously, it's because the UK has never been successfully invaded
>>> from Europe;
>> Well, not recently anyway.
>Are there any big plans for the thousandth anniversary of the last
>successful invasion?
Of course, the senior territory of the Duke of Normandy (of which the
English/British crown is a later title) was successfully invaded in 1940,
and not liberated until 1945.
>--
>Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
>Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
Dorothy J Heydt
Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <hqg703$stm$2...@reader1.panix.com> "Keith F. Lynch"
><k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>> Obviously, it's because the UK has never been successfully invaded
>>>> from Europe;
>
>>> Well, not recently anyway.
>
>>Are there any big plans for the thousandth anniversary of the last
>>successful invasion?
>
>Of course, the senior territory of the Duke of Normandy (of which the
>English/British crown is a later title) was successfully invaded in 1940,
>and not liberated until 1945.
Yes, but George didn't get to keep it.
Paul Dormer
Lynch) wrote:
>
> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> > Reminds me of a sketch on a TV programme called KYTV back in the
> > nineties (which was based on an eighties radio series called Radio
> > Active).
>
> > They were having a round Europe quiz in which the questionmaster
> > was very anti Europe.
>
> I still think it's weird that in UK usage, the UK doesn't consider
> itself part of Europe.
>
> If someone asks me whether I've ever been to Europe, I should answer
> yes if I'm talking to an American, no if I'm talking to an
> Englishman?
It's the difference between Europe as a geographical entity and Europe as
a political entity.
I recall that when I travelled with a couple of friends to Boston for the
1980 Worldcon, my first trip to the US, we got talking to an American on
the courtesy bus at Logan taking us to the car hire. We were asked if
we'd just got back from Europe. We were trying to explain that we
couldn't be getting *back* from Europe as we'd never been to the US
before. (Well, two of us hadn't.) Maybe they thought our English
accents were New England accents.
netcat
> > from Latin _insula_. It wasn't; the earlier form was "ey-lond"
> > where "ey" means "island" all by itself, as it still does in
> > e.g. Icelandic.
>
> Ironically, in Icelandic, Iceland is spelled "Island."
In Estonian, also.
rgds,
netca
Cryptoengineer
> Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> > Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >> Obviously, it's because the UK has never been successfully invaded
> >> from Europe;
> > Well, not recently anyway.
>
> Are there any big plans for the thousandth anniversary of the last
> successful invasion?
Its a little early to start planning for 2688.
pt
Cryptoengineer
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> > Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > > It's been said that Hitler was the only man Stalin ever trusted.
>
> > That makes sense, since they thought so much alike.
>
> > ObSF: In Niven & Pournelle's _Escape From Hell_, the sequel to
> > their Inferno, Hitler and Stalin are together again at last.
>
> I would like to see them write _Escape From Heaven_.
Stephen Brust did that, though he was basically ripping off a plot
idea from the earlier fantasy writer, J. Milton.
pt
Dorothy J Heydt
What?
/googles
Oh, William of Orange.
/shrug
Ben Yalow
>In article <hqglcg$sm6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In <hqg703$stm$2...@reader1.panix.com> "Keith F. Lynch"
>><k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>
>>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>>> Obviously, it's because the UK has never been successfully invaded
>>>>> from Europe;
>>
>>>> Well, not recently anyway.
>>
>>>Are there any big plans for the thousandth anniversary of the last
>>>successful invasion?
>>
>>Of course, the senior territory of the Duke of Normandy (of which the
>>English/British crown is a later title) was successfully invaded in 1940,
>>and not liberated until 1945.
>Yes, but George didn't get to keep it.
He got the Channel Islands back. They were his in 1940, in his "Duke of
Normandy" title.
>--
>Dorothy J. Heydt
Tim McDaniel
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Looking at who killed the most German soldiers, and the distribution
of the German Army even after Overlord, I think a good case could be
made for that.
> ... and Japan ...
I don't have good info about that. Certainly there's a correlation in
time between the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the surrender of
Japan, and Japan might have realized that the Soviets could continue
south and wipe out the Japanese armies in China ... but there's a
correlation in time between a couple of big booms and the surrender,
and also between the tightening blockade ... and in the time when the
Soviets were neutral, the Japanese asked the Soviets to pass along
requests for peace terms.
Sadao Asada
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#cite_note-73>
apparently suggests it was both shocks. Later in the article, "In a
meeting with the Emperor, Yonai spoke of his concerns about growing
civil unrest, 'I think the term is inappropriate, but the atomic bombs
and the Soviet entry into the war are, in a sense, divine gifts. This
way we don't have to say that we have quit the war because of domestic
circumstances.'"
But the "domestic circumstances" were due to the US with a little help
from the British and Chinese.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Tim McDaniel
>Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Apr 18, 8:09 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>> >> Obviously, it's because the UK has never been successfully
>>> >> invaded from Europe;
>>> >
>>> > Well, not recently anyway.
>>>
>>> Are there any big plans for the thousandth anniversary of the last
>>> successful invasion?
>>
>
>What?
>
>/googles
>
>Oh, William of Orange.
>
>/shrug
No "shrug" about it, dammit. Yes, I feels strongly. Dan Goodman was
being sarcastic, as shown by the phrase that was snipped, "and none of
its languages include any loanwords from any language of Continental
Europe." But the attitude that he parodied, that there's been no
successful invasion of England, usually with the addendum "since 1066"
and often even leaving off "successful"!, is common, and its falsehood
infuriates me.
Any number of invasions and raids by Welsh and Scots! Even just
adding "from overseas", the invasions I know of since then 1066 the
top of my head: several by Matilda and future Henry II (last one
successful in getting a negotiated victory), Prince Louis circa 1215,
the future Henry IV (success), at least five in the Wars of the Roses
(three successful), 1487?, Charles II (the one almost obit surfeit
quercus), Monmouth, William of Orange (successful), two Stuart
Pretenders.
Successful
AND > 1066
AND from overseas
AND no significant domestic support:
*that* set I think is empty.
But that's a lot of important qualifiers.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Tim McDaniel
Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <L13wr...@kithrup.com> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>>In article <hqglcg$sm6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>Of course, the senior territory of the Duke of Normandy (of which
>>>the English/British crown is a later title) was successfully
>>>invaded in 1940, and not liberated until 1945.
>
>>Yes, but George didn't get to keep it.
>
>He got the Channel Islands back. They were his in 1940, in his "Duke
>of Normandy" title.
The kings of England renounced the title of duke of Normandy in 1259.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1259)> Interestingly
enough, the excerpt there suggests that he held them as *duke of
Aquitaine* (I'd love to see a full text). But he's not used that
title for centuries either. In the 1953 court case about some islets
off Jersey,
<http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=88&code=fuk&p1=3&p2=3&case=17&k=19&p3=5>,
the UK argued that the Channel Islands had never been part of the
duchy of Normandy.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
David Friedman
tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
On the other hand, all of the post 1066 invasions you list were parts of
English civil wars--the closest to an exception, I suppose, is the c.
1215 one. I wouldn't describe a landing on the Confederate cost in the
American Civil War as an "invasion" even if the Union had hired a ship
from somewhere else to help with the supplies.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David Goldfarb
And German.
--
David Goldfarb |"As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | craved factual certainty, and I thirsted for a
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | meaningful vision of human life -- so I became
| a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop
| so you can meet girls." -- M. Cartmill
Nate Edel
> Successful
> AND > 1066
> AND from overseas
> AND no significant domestic support:
> *that* set I think is empty.
> But that's a lot of important qualifiers.
Once you add "significant domestic support," I wonder if the number of us
Yanks kicking around there in the early 1940s would have counted?
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It's obscenity. I'm
posting domain | for it."
Nate Edel
> more complicated than you might think.
Haven't read it, but I did like Heinlein's plot along those lines in _Job_;
one of his more underrated works, that one.
Tim McDaniel
Nate Edel <arch...@sfchat.org> wrote:
>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Successful
>> AND > 1066
>> AND from overseas
>> AND no significant domestic support:
>> *that* set I think is empty.
>> But that's a lot of important qualifiers.
>
>Once you add "significant domestic support," I wonder if the number
>of us Yanks kicking around there in the early 1940s would have
>counted?
I guess I was naive in thinking that
AND invasion of England to overthrow England's established government
and establish the invaders as the new governing class
was an obvious condition.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Tim McDaniel
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <hqi2bf$6f0$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>> AND > 1066
>> AND from overseas
>> AND no significant domestic support:
>> *that* set I think is empty.
>> But that's a lot of important qualifiers.
>
>On the other hand, all of the post 1066 invasions you list were parts of
>English civil wars
That's the "significant domestic support".
>--the closest to an exception, I suppose, is the c. 1215 one. I
>wouldn't describe a landing on the Confederate cost in the American
>Civil War as an "invasion" even if the Union had hired a ship from
>somewhere else to help with the supplies.
In the matter of Britain, in all those examples, the leadership of the
landing had been living outside England for some time (sometimes for
only some months, as with Edward IV in 1471, but often for years or
ever) and were coming into England from another country with a
sizeable body of troops.
To get an analogous situation in the US Civil War, you'd have to have
something like the exiled Abraham Lincoln in Cuba hiring mercenaries
and/or bands of troops from foreign countries, landing with his
cabinet and troops on the coast of New Jersey, gathering locals to
overthrow Jefferson Davis, who had seized DC and the Presidency
several years before.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Morris Keesan
> In article <L14n5...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <34f1809e-4c02-4a96...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 18, 8:09 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>> Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Obviously, it's because the UK has never been successfully
>>>> >> invaded from Europe;
...
>
> Any number of invasions and raids by Welsh and Scots!
Please explain how and when the UK was invaded by Scots. First take a
moment to remember what "UK" stands for.
David Friedman
"Morris Keesan" <mke...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
I believe the Scotii invaded from Ireland in the 400's, establishing the
kingdom of Dal Riata on the west coast of what is now known as Scotland.
It's true that there was no UK at the time, but that's also true of the
invasion of 1066, so I take it that the discussion used "UK" to mean
"present territory of the UK."
Tim McDaniel
>
>> In article <L14n5...@kithrup.com>,
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <34f1809e-4c02-4a96...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 18, 8:09 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>>> Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> Obviously, it's because the UK has never been successfully
>>>>> >> invaded from Europe;
>...
>>
>> Any number of invasions and raids by Welsh and Scots!
>
>Please explain how and when the UK was invaded by Scots.
Please explain how you came to snip my previous sentence that included
>> But the attitude that he parodied, that there's been no successful
>> invasion of England,
Nota bene: I WROTE ENGLAND, repeatedly actually, and addressed England
only. I don't know enough Scottish history to talk about them, or
Wales.
I know well the distinction between England (original and after the
inclusion of Wales in Henry VIII's time), Great Britain, Britain, and
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and [Northern] Ireland.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Tim McDaniel
Not "repeatedly", I now see: only in that one place. Blasted trn4
doesn't allow me to recheck articles while I'm composing a reply.
Sorry for my false memory.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Harry Mary Andruschak
> Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> > Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >> Obviously, it's because the UK has never been successfully invaded
> >> from Europe;
>
> Are there any big plans for the thousandth anniversary of the last
> successful invasion?
> Keith F. Lynch -http://keithlynch.net/
> Please seehttp://keithlynch.net/email.htmlbefore emailing me.
2066 Grand International Archery Contest
2066 Grand tapestery weaving contest
2066 Let's create a new language contest
Cryptoengineer
wrote:
> On Apr 19, 3:09 am, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
> > Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > >> Obviously, it's because the UK has never been successfully invaded
> > >> from Europe;
> > > Well, not recently anyway.
>
> > Are there any big plans for the thousandth anniversary of the last
> > successful invasion?
> > --
> > Keith F. Lynch -http://keithlynch.net/
>
> 2066 Grand International Archery Contest
> 2066 Grand tapestery weaving contest
> 2066 Let's create a new language contest
2006 Vision safety seminar.
pt
Dorothy J Heydt
Harry Mary Andruschak <adopts...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Apr 19, 3:09 am, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>
>> Are there any big plans for the thousandth anniversary of the last
>> successful invasion?
>
>2066 Grand tapestery weaving contest
Except the Bayeux Tapestry isn't a woven tapestry, properly
so-called. La Tapesserie de Bayeux is a long long length of
linen, *embroidered* in five colors of woollen yarn. I would
love to see a Bayeux-stitch competition, though, preferably while
I'm alive to see it (which sorta leaves 2066 out).
Meanwhile, I have a book on the Tapestry with pictures of
a reconstruction of the missing end, showing William on the
throne. I have another book having a cartoon before the first
chapter, showing the Battle of Hastings being fought in the
background, while in the foreground somebody sits before an
embroidery frame, stitching away like mad. And there was a _New
Yorker_ cover in 1944 showing scenes from D-Day done up in Bayeux
style. I used to have a photocopy of it ... don't know what
happened to it, but you know, three moves equal one fire.
And Bayeux stitch (well, stitches) is dead simple. I've done
quite a lot of it myself -- but I can't *draw*, which prevents me
from doing any Bayeux-like scenes. But it's like MacPaint for
fabric. You do the outlines with a stem stitch and then fill in
the spaces with laid-and-couched. (I've even taught classes in
it in the SCA. Takes about ten minutes of explanation and the
rest of the hour in practice.)
Sorry; Harry seems to have pushed one of my buttons.
Keith F. Lynch
> done up in Bayeux style.
Re-use the same one. Norman Invasion, Normandy Invasion, who'll
notice the difference?
Keith F. Lynch
> Blasted trn4 doesn't allow me to recheck articles while I'm
> composing a reply.
If you're composing a reply in Emacs, as I do, you can pull up your
saved newsgroup postings in another window. (Yes, Emacs has had
windows since long before Microsoft, Apple, or even Xerox PARC.) And
I have a copy of the past ten years of saved newsgroup postings (and
saved email) here on Panix. (Earlier material is on another machine,
harder to get to, but I have lees need of it.)
Dorothy J Heydt
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> And there was a _New Yorker_ cover in 1944 showing scenes from D-Day
>> done up in Bayeux style.
>
>Re-use the same one. Norman Invasion, Normandy Invasion, who'll
>notice the difference?
Heh. You haven't seen it. The original Tapestry didn't feature
recognizable images of Roosevelt and Churchill and Eisenhower.
Keith F. Lynch
> Heh. You haven't seen it. The original Tapestry didn't feature
> recognizable images of Roosevelt and Churchill and Eisenhower.
So? Why should it? None of them were present in Normandy on D-day.
Keith F. Lynch
> I wouldn't describe a landing on the Confederate cost in the
I would. But that's only because the American so-called Civil War
wasn't a civil war. There weren't two groups battling for control
of the US government.
Keith F. Lynch
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Better than in Russia, where kids were (still are?) taught that the
>> USSR beat Germany ... all by itself.
> Looking at who killed the most German soldiers, and the distribution
> of the German Army even after Overlord, I think a good case could be
> made for that.
The goal wasn't to kill German soldiers, but to win the war. German
soldiers were far more willing to surrender on the western front, as
they knew they had far better odds of surviving the experience.
The relative performance of the USSR and the west is reflected in
where the armies met. And they met in Germany and Austria, not
France and Belgium.
Keith F. Lynch
>> Worldcon is not in Southgate, California? Of course the '58
>> Worldcon wasn't really, either.
> I just must not be fannish enough; I'm missing this. Why should
> this year's Worldcon be in Southgate? I was alive in 1958; I was
> even reading SF; but it wasn't till 1967 that I got to a con.
A hoax bid for "Southgate in '58" won. Southgate was a small suburb
of Los Angeles. So the con was held in Los Angeles proper, and its
mayor pronounced that the con venue was officially part of Southgate
for the duration of the con.
The commitee then promulgated "Let's do it again in 2010!" Presumably
they chose this year because it's the first year after 1958 that
rhymes with "again."
Keith F. Lynch
> modern junior college: no one can flunk out of it."
Isn't that official Catholic doctrine? That nobody ever flunks out
of Purgatory?
Dorothy J Heydt
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Better than in Russia, where kids were (still are?) taught that the
>>> USSR beat Germany ... all by itself.
>
>> Looking at who killed the most German soldiers, and the distribution
>> of the German Army even after Overlord, I think a good case could be
>> made for that.
>
>The goal wasn't to kill German soldiers, but to win the war. German
>soldiers were far more willing to surrender on the western front, as
>they knew they had far better odds of surviving the experience.
When it was clear that the Axis were going to lose, and the
Allies were invading Axis-held territory from both directions,
Wernher von Braun took a look at a war map and told his
colleagues, "We'd better head West." So they got into a boxcar
(I believe) and did so, and managed to get themselves captured by
the US rather than by the USSR.
Dorothy J Heydt
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Since, as John Ciardi pointed out, Dante's "Purgatory is like a
>> modern junior college: no one can flunk out of it."
>
>Isn't that official Catholic doctrine? That nobody ever flunks out
>of Purgatory?
I don't think any of the catechisms put it that way. But yes,
once you get to Purgatory you are already saved. You just have
to work yourself into shape so that you can enter Heaven. Kind
of like physical therapy after a serious disease or accident.
David Goldfarb
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>A hoax bid for "Southgate in '58" won. Southgate was a small suburb
>of Los Angeles.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the bid was for the Southgate
that's a suburb of London. When the bid won, holding the con there
was deemed impossible, so they found a venue in Los Angeles instead.
>The commitee then promulgated "Let's do it again in 2010!" Presumably
>they chose this year because it's the first year after 1958 that
>rhymes with "again."
This slogan was also said at the 2008 Farthing Party. (The 2009
Farthing Party was more or less preempted by Anticipation.)
--
David Goldfarb |"You will know pain."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "And you will know fear."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |"And then you will die. Have a pleasant flight."
| -- Babylon 5, "The Parliament of Dreams"
Dan Goodman
> In article <xn0gt1n8y...@news.iphouse.com>,
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> >
> >> Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >> > It's been said that Hitler was the only man Stalin ever trusted.
> >>
> >> That makes sense, since they thought so much alike.
> >>
> >> ObSF: In Niven & Pournelle's _Escape From Hell_, the sequel to
> >> their Inferno, Hitler and Stalin are together again at last.
> >
> > I would like to see them write _Escape From Heaven_.
>
> I asked Jerry Pournelle once when they were going to do
> Purgatory, and he pointed out that their Hell was a lot more like
> Purgatory. Since, as John Ciardi pointed out, Dante's "Purgatory
> is like a modern junior college: no one can flunk out of it."
> See Lewis's _The Great Divorce_ for why getting out of Heaven is
> more complicated than you might think.
I've read it.
But I'd still like to see Escape From Heaven.
Possibly as an Ace-style double with Our Man in Nirvana.
> For that matter, when Beatrice wanted to warn Dante that he was
> in danger, she couldn't simply descend to the Dark Wood and tell
> him so. He was so far gone that he couldn't see her. She had to
> descend further, into Limbo, and ask Virgil to carry the message.
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers"
A Streetcar Named Expire
http://dsgood.dreamwidth.com
http://dsgood.livejournal.com
http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
Dan Goodman
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> > See Lewis's _The Great Divorce_ for why getting out of Heaven is
> > more complicated than you might think.
>
> Haven't read it, but I did like Heinlein's plot along those lines in
> Job; one of his more underrated works, that one.
It could have used more editing. To begin with, by someone more
familiar with Yiddish-influenced English.
Dan Goodman
> On Apr 18, 10:07�pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> > > Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > > > It's been said that Hitler was the only man Stalin ever trusted.
> >
> > > That makes sense, since they thought so much alike.
> >
> > > ObSF: �In Niven & Pournelle's _Escape From Hell_, the sequel to
> > > their Inferno, Hitler and Stalin are together again at last.
> >
> > I would like to see them write _Escape From Heaven_.
>
> Stephen Brust did that, though he was basically ripping off a plot
> idea from the earlier fantasy writer, J. Milton.
Not exactly; he wrote about a strategic withdrawal (or exile, depending
how you look at it.)
Dan Goodman
> In article <hqli6d$f25$5...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >>> Better than in Russia, where kids were (still are?) taught that
> the >>> USSR beat Germany ... all by itself.
> >
> >> Looking at who killed the most German soldiers, and the
> distribution >> of the German Army even after Overlord, I think a
> good case could be >> made for that.
> >
> > The goal wasn't to kill German soldiers, but to win the war. German
> > soldiers were far more willing to surrender on the western front, as
> > they knew they had far better odds of surviving the experience.
>
> When it was clear that the Axis were going to lose, and the
> Allies were invading Axis-held territory from both directions,
> Wernher von Braun took a look at a war map and told his
> colleagues, "We'd better head West." So they got into a boxcar
> (I believe) and did so, and managed to get themselves captured by
> the US rather than by the USSR.
As I recall, some of them preferred the USSR and took steps to ensure
they were captured by Soviets.
Cryptoengineer
> > Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > >> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > >>> Better than in Russia, where kids were (still are?) taught that
> > the >>> USSR beat Germany ... all by itself.
>
> > >> Looking at who killed the most German soldiers, and the
> > distribution >> of the German Army even after Overlord, I think a
> > good case could be >> made for that.
>
> > > The goal wasn't to kill German soldiers, but to win the war. German
> > > soldiers were far more willing to surrender on the western front, as
> > > they knew they had far better odds of surviving the experience.
>
> > When it was clear that the Axis were going to lose, and the
> > Allies were invading Axis-held territory from both directions,
> > Wernher von Braun took a look at a war map and told his
> > colleagues, "We'd better head West." So they got into a boxcar
> > (I believe) and did so, and managed to get themselves captured by
> > the US rather than by the USSR.
>
> As I recall, some of them preferred the USSR and took steps to ensure
> they were captured by Soviets.
Many people made poor decisions during the war.
pt
Nate Edel
> Nate Edel wrote:
> > Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> > > See Lewis's _The Great Divorce_ for why getting out of Heaven is
> > > more complicated than you might think.
> >
> > Haven't read it, but I did like Heinlein's plot along those lines in
> > Job; one of his more underrated works, that one.
>
> It could have used more editing. To begin with, by someone more
> familiar with Yiddish-influenced English.
Most of his later works could have; I'm not sure what the objection on the
Yiddish-influenced English is, but I'm really quite out of touch with such
things for an expatriate NYer of my ancestry.
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It's obscenity. I'm
posting domain | for it."
Harry Mary Andruschak
> Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> > Since, as John Ciardi pointed out, Dante's "Purgatory is like a
> > modern junior college: no one can flunk out of it."
>
> Isn't that official Catholic doctrine? That nobody ever flunks out
> of Purgatory?
More or less. In the "particular judgeement", those who accept God are
saved. Purgatory is more or less the final wash and spin dry cycle.
Nor does God "send" anyone to hell. One actively chooses it by defying
God's grace.
Cryptoengineer
wrote:
'Blame the victim' clearly reaches high up.
pt
Tim McDaniel
No. In the "particular judgeement", those whom God accepts are saved.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Nate Edel <arch...@sfchat.org> wrote:
>Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Nate Edel wrote:
>> > Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> > > See Lewis's _The Great Divorce_ for why getting out of Heaven is
>> > > more complicated than you might think.
>> >
>> > Haven't read it, but I did like Heinlein's plot along those lines in
>> > Job; one of his more underrated works, that one.
>>
>> It could have used more editing. To begin with, by someone more
>> familiar with Yiddish-influenced English.
>
>Most of his later works could have; I'm not sure what the objection on the
>Yiddish-influenced English is, but I'm really quite out of touch with such
>things for an expatriate NYer of my ancestry.
Have I lost track of the thread somewhere? *Heinlein*'s later
work is full of Yiddish influence?? A Methodist from Missouri
whose ancestors were Bavarian Catholics?
Dorothy J Heydt
Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>Harry Mary Andruschak <adopts...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In the "particular judgeement", those who accept God are saved.
>
>No. In the "particular judgeement", those whom God accepts are saved.
You're wrong and Harry is right. We are all sinners and God
knows it, but he's willing to take us on regardless, even if it
will take longer than our lifetimes for us to get out of the
self-centered frame of mind that makes us sin -- if only we'll
agree to do it.
Dan Goodman
> In article <10h2a7x...@claudius.sfchat.org>,
> Nate Edel <arch...@sfchat.org> wrote:
> >Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >> Nate Edel wrote:
> >> > Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >> > > See Lewis's _The Great Divorce_ for why getting out of Heaven
> is >> > > more complicated than you might think.
> >> >
> >> > Haven't read it, but I did like Heinlein's plot along those
> lines in >> > Job; one of his more underrated works, that one.
> > >
> >> It could have used more editing. To begin with, by someone more
> >> familiar with Yiddish-influenced English.
> >
> > Most of his later works could have; I'm not sure what the objection
> > on the Yiddish-influenced English is,
He got it wrong; specifically, the rhythm/
but I'm really quite out of
> > touch with such things for an expatriate NYer of my ancestry.
>
> Have I lost track of the thread somewhere? *Heinlein*'s later
> work is full of Yiddish influence??
One character in Job (Loki, if I recall correctly) spoke that way.
A Methodist from Missouri
> whose ancestors were Bavarian Catholics?
Writers have been known to give characters dialects which they don't
use themselves.
Michael Stemper
>In article <10h2a7x...@claudius.sfchat.org>, Nate Edel <arch...@sfchat.org> wrote:
>>Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>> It could have used more editing. To begin with, by someone more
>>> familiar with Yiddish-influenced English.
>>
>>Most of his later works could have; I'm not sure what the objection on the
>>Yiddish-influenced English is, but I'm really quite out of touch with such
>>things for an expatriate NYer of my ancestry.
>
>Have I lost track of the thread somewhere? *Heinlein*'s later
>work is full of Yiddish influence?? A Methodist from Missouri
Heinlein was a Methodist? I always had him pegged as an atheist. (It
would explain why he had a much better knowledge of the Bible than
I do, though.)
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.
Tim McDaniel
>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Harry Mary Andruschak <adopts...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>In the "particular judgeement", those who accept God are saved.
>>
>>No. In the "particular judgeement", those whom God accepts are saved.
>
>You're wrong and Harry is right. We are all sinners and God knows
>it, but he's willing to take us on regardless, even if it will take
>longer than our lifetimes for us to get out of the self-centered
>frame of mind that makes us sin -- if only we'll agree to do it.
I think your and Harry's theology are wrong, unless Catholic theology
has changed radically in the past few decades. If one dies in a state
of mortal sin, and probably in original sin, one is going to Hell
regardless of whatever desires one might have at the moment of the
Particular Judgment, being when death has happened.
The Catholic Encyclopedia at
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm> dates from 1917, and says
"The Catholic doctrine of the particular judgment is this: that
immediately after death the eternal destiny of each separated soul is
decided by the just judgment of God. Although there has been no formal
definition on this point, the dogma is clearly implied in the Union
Decree of Eugene IV (1439), which declares that ... those who depart
in actual mortal sin, or merely with original sin, are at once
consigned to eternal punishment, the quality of which corresponds to
their sin (paenis tamen disparibus). The doctrine is also in the
profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus in 1274, in the Bull
"Benedictus Deus" of Benedict XII, in 1336, and in the professions of
faith of Gregory XIII and Benedict XIV."
"Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition", 1021-1050,
<http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#I>, has
"1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either
accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ. [592]
...
"1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul
at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers
his life to Christ ...
"1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its
eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a
state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the
punishments of hell, 'eternal fire'. [617] ..."
You might argue that, if one is in a state of mortal sin, one will
invariably reject God at one's Particular Judgment, and if not, one
will invariably accept God ... but that seems contrived to me, to
multiply entities by
ascribing a personal choice that would be equivalent to the judgment of
God. To me, it also smacks of semi-Pelagianism, by stating that human
will can precede divine Grace, or even Pelagianism, stating that human
will can effect its own salvation, or the efficacy of
imperfect contrition ("desire not to sin for a reason other than love
of God").
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13703a.htm>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semipelagianism>
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Michael Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <L18Fx...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) writes:
>>In article <10h2a7x...@claudius.sfchat.org>, Nate Edel
><arch...@sfchat.org> wrote:
>>>Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>>> It could have used more editing. To begin with, by someone more
>>>> familiar with Yiddish-influenced English.
>>>
>>>Most of his later works could have; I'm not sure what the objection on the
>>>Yiddish-influenced English is, but I'm really quite out of touch with such
>>>things for an expatriate NYer of my ancestry.
>>
>>Have I lost track of the thread somewhere? *Heinlein*'s later
>>work is full of Yiddish influence?? A Methodist from Missouri
>
>Heinlein was a Methodist? I always had him pegged as an atheist. (It
>would explain why he had a much better knowledge of the Bible than
>I do, though.)
Probably better described as originally-and-still-nominally-Methodist,
currently-agnostic-or-maybe-atheist-it's-really-none-of-your-business-
buddy. But in _Tramp Royale_ he describes how he and Ginny were
visiting Hong Kong (I think) and a local couple mentioned that
they were Methodists and the Heinleins said, "Why, so are we!"
and went to church with them and had a nice sociable time.
Of course, that doesn't mean that they weren't about as much
Methodists as Martin Padway was a Congregationalist.
(For those who may not have read de Camp's _Lest Darkness Fall_:
[a] go and read it as quickly as possible; [b] Padway has made an
involuntary time trip to sixth-century Italy, where religious
controversy is rife. Whenever asked what his religion is, Padway
first ascertains what the questioner's is, and then answers,
"Well, I'm what back home we call a Congregationalist. That's
the closest thing we have to [whatever the questioner is] in my
country.")
Keith F. Lynch
> Heinlein was a Methodist? I always had him pegged as an atheist.
> (It would explain why he had a much better knowledge of the Bible
> than I do, though.)
Atheists can't be knowledgeable about the Bible?
Keith F. Lynch
> regardless, even if it will take longer than our lifetimes for us to
> get out of the self-centered frame of mind that makes us sin -- if
> only we'll agree to do it.
You said that it's not possible to repent in Hell or to sin in Heaven
since there is no time or change in either place. But there's
obviously time and change in Purgatory, so why can't someone there
commit a mortal sin and "flunk out"?
Kip Williams
> Michael Stemper<michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Heinlein was a Methodist? I always had him pegged as an atheist.
>> (It would explain why he had a much better knowledge of the Bible
>> than I do, though.)
>
> Atheists can't be knowledgeable about the Bible?
Isaac would turn in his grave, were such a thing not a contradiction of
known reality.
Kip W
Michael Stemper
>Michael Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Heinlein was a Methodist? I always had him pegged as an atheist.
>> (It would explain why he had a much better knowledge of the Bible
>> than I do, though.)
>
>Atheists can't be knowledgeable about the Bible?
Of course they can. It's just much less likely.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
No animals were harmed in the composition of this message.
Michael Stemper
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Am I the only time-binding fan disappointed that this year's
>>> Worldcon is not in Southgate, California? Of course the '58
>>> Worldcon wasn't really, either.
>
>> I just must not be fannish enough; I'm missing this. Why should
>> this year's Worldcon be in Southgate? I was alive in 1958; I was
>> even reading SF; but it wasn't till 1967 that I got to a con.
>
>A hoax bid for "Southgate in '58" won.
Was it running against "Minneapolis in '73"?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce,
they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Doug Wickström
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce,
>they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Now tell me what you know. --Groucho Marx
--
Doug Wickström
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> A hoax bid for "Southgate in '58" won.
> Was it running against "Minneapolis in '73"?
Why, yes, it was, and it was remarkable that it won, given that the
Minneapolis group was giving out 1973 pennies -- in the 1950s. Fans
took a close look at these purported 1973 cents and pronounced them
very good forgeries, except that the reverse was all wrong, as it
didn't show the proper sheaves of wheat.