The Quotable ADR
Tiglath
The quotable Anastassios D. Retzios (ADR)
------------------------------------------------------------
1. "In WWII, the winter was not an element in the German defeat."
2. "In the Great Northern War, the Russian defeat of the Swedes and
their allies had nothing to do with winter."
3. 'There has never been a "Sophist Movement".'
4. (And words to the effect that Protagoras was not a Sophist.)
5. "[P]roving a negative, which is a scientific impossibility."
6. "Nor were sophists lawyers as the term or even the function did not
apply in antiquity."
7. "Polybius, for example, had little love for the Romans."
Hilariously quotable are also ADR's statements to the effect that
Bertrand Russell (On Protagoras) was an old fart, and that Professor
Kerferd (On the Sophistic Movement) had a scant education.
There are many more, of course, including a fine collection of howlers
regarding Alexander the Great, which deserved especial treatment since
Mr. Retzios is a Macedonian and often plays an Alexandrine expert in
these precincts.
See: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/0ce06283b19276af
---------------------------------------------
(Some) CONTRARY EVIDENCE
1. "The Germans unprepared for the rigors of winter campaigning,
suffered
great privations and heavy losses."
-- Churchill, W. S., 1950, The Second World War, Volume IV
"The Hinge of Fate," p. 306. Mariner Books
2. "For much of the day, a blizzard engulfed both armies, making
attacks
impossible. However, at midday, the winds changed and the snowstorm
blew directly into the eyes of the Russians. Charles XII saw his
opportunity and advanced on the Russian army under cover of the
weather."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_%281700%29
The winter considerably delayed the ultimate Russian defeat
of Sweden, by preventing an early Russian victory early in the war.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophist_movement&redirect=no
http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Sophist-Movement/128829
http://www.bookrags.com/essay-2004/8/5/123133/3720
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521283574
http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631210610_chunk_g978063121061010
4. "The great pre-Socratic systems that we have been considering were
confronted, in the latter half of the fifth century, by a sceptical
movement, in which the most important figure was Protagoras, chief of
the Sophists."
-- Russell, B, 1945, "A History of Western
Philosophy, 1945, p.73, Simon and Schuster.
From: The Older Sophists: A Complete Translation By Several Hands Of
The Fragments. By Hermann Diels, Rosamond Kent Sprague
Diogenes Laertius (c. 250 ?) mentions the titles of eleven surviving
books by Protagoras, meaning that while Laertius wrote centuries after
Protagoras he must have had a good idea of his works, an he has this
to say:
"Protagoras was the first man to exact a fee of one hundred minas. He
was also the first to [...] expound the importance of the right
moment, to conduct debates, and to introduce disputants to the tricks
of argument." In other words, he is describing a Sophist.
Philostratus "the Athenian" (c. 170-247) in his "Lives of the
Sophists" starts with: "Protagoras of Abdera, the sophist, became a
disciple of Democritus [...]"
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263 – c. 339) in his Chronicle: "Euripides...
is held in renown, and so is Protagoras the sophist, whose books the
Athenians burned [...]"
Timon of Phlius (c. 320-230 B.C.) in Lampoons: "...afterwards, too, to
Protagoras among the sophists, a man with clear voice, eyes straight
on the mark, and able for any work."
Clement of Alexandria (c.150 - 215) in Miscellanies: "Every argument
has an opposite argument, say the Greeks, following Protagoras."
Seneca (c. 4 BC – AD 65) in Letters: Protagoras says that one can
argue equally well on either side of any question, including the
question itself of whether both sides of any question can be
argued." He is describing a Sophist.
Aristophanes (c. 446 – c. 386 BC) in the Clouds or The School For
Sophists. Introductory Note by Alan Somerstein: "It all had started,
as far as Athens was concerned, with Protagoras, who had spread the
gospel that it didn't matter whether the gods existed and that all
values were relative."
5. http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/99adf8666f08e4ff
6. Robert J. Bonner, Lawyers and Litigants in Ancient Athens: The
Genesis
of the Legal Profession (New York: Benjamin Blom).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Cincia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero
7. Polybius wrote a monumental eulogy to Rome in his Magnus Opus,
Historiae,
while in the favor of the very Scipio family.
Tiglath
Forgot to crosspost to s.ha. Done
---------------------------------------------------------
See: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/0ce06283b19276af
---------------------------------------------
(Some) CONTRARY EVIDENCE
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_%281700%29
http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631210610_ch...
Tiglath
Forgot to crosspost to s.h.a. Done
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> 5. "[P]roving a negative, which is a scientific impossibility."
You can't "Prove" a negative. Oh, I know, there's no shortage
of idiots who claim that you can, but they are always the
result of one of two issues. They are #1 Stupidity and #2
a change in definitions.
I'll give you a typical example of something misidentified as
"Proving the negative"...
Let's say a defendant is on trial for murder and it looks bad
for him. The prosecution is able to prove a strong motive, and
several witnesses say that the murder weapon, a knife, was
owned by the defendant. Now the defendant admits all this,
but insist someone else had to commit the crime because he
was nowhere near the victim.
"Proving he wasn't there, at the scene of the crime," would be
proving a negative, right?
Well, wrong. Because no defendant actually "Proves" where he
wasn't, he instead "Proves" where he was. It's taken for granted
that he couldn't be two places at once.
But the point, dear fool, is that all the effort, all the "Proof" is
for
where he was and NOT where he wasn't.
You're welcome.
erilar
<c9891cf0-4c16-4279...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> Forgot to crosspost to s.h.a. Done
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> The quotable Anastassios D. Retzios (ADR)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. "In WWII, the winter was not an element in the German defeat."
etc.
AHA! THAT's who this ADR is!
--
Erilar, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books:
habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess.
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > 5. "[P]roving a negative, which is a scientific impossibility."
>
> You can't "Prove" a negative. Oh, I know, there's no shortage
> of idiots who claim that you can, but they are always the
> result of one of two issues. They are #1 Stupidity and #2
> a change in definitions.
>
> I'll give you a typical example of something misidentified as
> "Proving the negative"...
The terminal idiot JTEM doesn't understand that just because there are
some negative propositions that can't be proven, it does NOT mean that
no negative proposition can't be proved. Which is what the statement
I criticize claims.
Even after being given lots of examples of provable negatives, he
still persists in his invincible ignorance.
Here is one more negative proposition that JTEM, himself, keeps
proving true time after time.
"JTEM does not have any discernible intelligence."
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> The terminal idiot JTEM doesn't
It's pretty simply, you worthless retard: If you want
to dispute me then dispute me. All you're doing is
spewing a sophomoric (f)Lame.
Go on, construct an example where you "Prove" a
negative, shit for brains.
Tiglath
I have done it numerous times. Did everyone go over your head?
I repeat this one so that you can catch up, dummie.
Here is a negative axiom of logic:
The Principle of Contradiction: contradictory statements cannot both
at the same time be true.
It's truth is not only self-evident but from it one can construct an
infinite number of provable negative propositions.
Putting it is a way you can understand:
The statements: "JTEM is a faggot," and, "JTEM is not a faggot,"
cannot both be true.
That's a proven negative.
(Especially when we know which statement is true.)
James Beck
wrote:
Maybe discovering that he has a gap in his education will make him
more reasonable. Hope springs eternal.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Go on, construct an example where you "Prove" a
> > negative, shit for brains.
> I have done it numerous times. Did everyone go over
> your head?
An assertion followed by gibberish.
> I repeat this one so that you can catch up, dummie.
>
> Here is a negative axiom of logic:
> The statements: "JTEM is a faggot," and, "JTEM is not
> a faggot," cannot both be true.
So you're saying that two contradictory statement can't be
true, therefore a negative can be proven.
Damn. You really are retarded. The most obvious issue here,
you retard, is that your "Proof" is lacking any proof. This was
necessary for you, as if you had made the mistake of trying to
include "Proof" you would have made a fool out of yourself.
Either your "Proof" would have been nonsense, or, as I had
previously demonstrated, you would have simply proven a
positive and then taken it for granted that any seemingly
contradictory statement is false.
Secondly, you fail to define any parameters. As you're too
frigging stupid to understand what this means, allow me to
demonstrate.
The statement "Drugs are good and drugs are bad" IS TRUE,
though it appears contradictory.
The very same drug which can be helpful to one can be
detrimental to someone else. If I had included parameters,
"Medications properly taken to treat an illness or condition
are good, while abused drugs -- whether illegal drugs or
pharmaceuticals -- are bad," there isn't even a contradiction!
So parameters are extremely important. No, really, they are.
JTEM
James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Maybe discovering that
Oh, another sock puppet. Someone is very upset...
am...@hotmail.com
Just for the educational purposes, how are you figuring out who is and
who is not a socket puppet?
am...@hotmail.com
> Forgot to crosspost to s.h.a. Done
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> The quotable Anastassios D. Retzios (ADR)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. "In WWII, the winter was not an element in the German defeat."
Well, he claimed that US contribution to WWI was insignificant and in
WWII even less so.
He also came with an interesting idea that post-WWII Soviet occupation
of the WHOLE Europe would not be such a bad things because ... it
would speed up destruction of the Soviet Block.
> --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_%281700%29
> 5.http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/99adf8666f08e4ff
JTEM
a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Just for the educational purposes,
I haven't patience to teach a "Special Education" class.
Sorry.
Tiglath
From where I am sitting it's all gap and a few islets of instinct to
let him tie his shoes and tell dick from pussy.
Tiglath
Gee, asking hard questions like that is like asking Stephen Hawking to
run a marathon.
Everyone who dislikes John or disagrees with him is either a sock-
puppet or has shit for brains, don't you know that?
Now, imagine this guy's parent's misfortune: he is not the only faggot
in the family, but he is also a mental pygmy.
Talk about double whammy.
God does give out shitty hands, sometime.
Of course the world is replete of talented homosexuals, from Oscar
Wilde to Nureyev, but when the Lord was passing talent around in his
infinite wisdom left JTEM out so that average people could have
someone to look down to.
Tiglath
Translation: computer networking to me is like Greek to ADR.
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Go on, construct an example where you "Prove" a
> > > negative, shit for brains.
> > I have done it numerous times. Did everyone go over
> > your head?
>
> An assertion followed by gibberish.
>
> > I repeat this one so that you can catch up, dummie.
>
> > Here is a negative axiom of logic:
> > The statements: "JTEM is a faggot," and, "JTEM is not
> > a faggot," cannot both be true.
>
> So you're saying that two contradictory statement can't be
> true, therefore a negative can be proven.
>
> Damn. You really are retarded. The most obvious issue here,
> you retard, is that your "Proof" is lacking any proof.
How so?
A proof is simple an argument that compels the mind to accept an
assertion as true. That is usually by the application of specified
rules, assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
Ask someone smarter than you to explain what that means.
Here is another proof of a negative.
In a right angle triangle the sum of the squares of the lengths of the
shorter sides is not less or more than the square of the length of the
longer side.
It's a corollary mathematical theorem, which is as much proof as you
can get.
However, that theorem still rests on the axioms of Euclidean geometry,
no less than the '"JTEM is a faggot," and, "JTEM is not
a faggot," cannot both be true.' If fact the latter is much closer to
the axioms than the former.
The axioms of logic are not optional, idiot. They are inherent to
our consciousness and you cannot get out of bed without them.
Therefore the statement, "JTEM is a faggot," and, "JTEM is not a
faggot," cannot both be true.' is no less proof that the Pythagoras
Theorem. Both depend on their respective axioms.
If all that gave you a headache relax, here is an easy one. The
variety of ways to prove your ignorance is infinite as you can
see...., maybe...
"It is not possible to square the circle with a finite number of
ruler-and-compass construction operations."
The proof is called the Lindemann–Weierstrass theorem.
At your level of schooling it will give you a migrane till Christmas,
but you deserve it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindemann%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem
>
> Secondly, you fail to define any parameters. As you're too
> frigging stupid to understand what this means, allow me to
> demonstrate.
>
> The statement "Drugs are good and drugs are bad" IS TRUE,
> though it appears contradictory.
>
That's loading the dice, nitwit. You show an statement, then test a
different statement. What an idiot. Allow me to demonstrate...
You present the proposition: "Drugs are good and drugs are bad"
Which is not a good start as it is open to ambiguity, and then you
test for contradiction a different proposition:
"Drug D is good for Peter but it's bad for Paul."
That is no contradiction at all.
You are not very good at cheating either. You get caught every
time.
Gotta tell you John, you are good at being dumb the way midgets are
good at being short.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I haven't patience to teach a "Special Education" class.
>
> > Sorry.
>
> Translation: computer networking to me is
Actually, shit for brains, the translation would go more
like this: "Fuck off, retard."
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Gee, asking hard questions
Huh? I'm glad that this is coming from someone who
tried his best to make Giwer look good, by failing to
come up with a single legitimate reason for interpreting
the Merneptah stele as mentioning Israel.
None of the irony was lost.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Damn. You really are retarded. The most obvious issue
> > here, you retard, is that your "Proof" is lacking any
> > proof.
>
> How so?
Like I said, I don't have the patience to teach a "Special
Education" class.
> A proof is simple an argument that compels the mind
> to accept an assertion as true.
No, honey, we're talking "Real Life" here. It is not and
never has been about "Arguments," despite what lunatic
reich wingers claim. It's about evidence, and what the
evidence can demonstrate.
> Here is another proof of a negative.
And you're going to actually get the right context this
time, or did you Google some arithmetic page and
mistake that as relevant to the subject of ancient
history?
> In a right angle triangle the sum of the squares of the
> lengths of the shorter sides is not
Oops.
Now "Prove" your point by applying the above to any one
or more of ANCIENT HISTORY issues debated here in
the past here.
Go on, shit for brains, give it a whirl. The exercise may
yet convince you of your error...
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I haven't patience to teach a "Special Education" class.
>
> > > Sorry.
>
> > Translation: computer networking to me is
>
> Actually, shit for brains,
JTEM's strategy for victory is cacophony.
Pal, you are much the amputee in an ass kicking competition.
Tiglath
Yawn.
Tiglath
JTEM is not only dull himself; he is the cause of dullness in others.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> JTEM's strategy for victory
This is usenet, shit for brains. There's no such thing
as "Victory."
JTEM
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> JTEM is not only dull himself;
Odd that you keep replying to me, on the
order of a compulsion, even as you claim
to be bored...
James Beck
wrote:
>On Nov 14, 4:48锟絧m, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:46:45 -0800 (PST), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 14, 3:21锟絧m, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> 锟絋iglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>> >> > The terminal idiot JTEM doesn't
>>
>> >> It's pretty simply, you worthless retard: 锟絀f you want
>> >> to dispute me then dispute me. All you're doing is
>> >> spewing a sophomoric (f)Lame.
>>
>> >> Go on, construct an example where you "Prove" a
>> >> negative, shit for brains.
>>
>> >I have done it numerous times. 锟紻id everyone go over your head?
>>
>> >I repeat this one so that you can catch up, dummie.
>>
>> >Here is a negative axiom of logic:
>>
>> >The Principle of Contradiction: contradictory statements cannot both
>> >at the same time be true.
>>
>> >It's truth is not only self-evident but from it one can construct an
>> >infinite number of provable negative propositions.
>>
>> >Putting it is a way you can understand:
>>
>> >The statements: "JTEM is a faggot," and, "JTEM is not a faggot,"
>> >cannot both be true.
>>
>> >That's a proven negative.
>>
>> >(Especially when we know which statement is true.)
>>
>> Maybe discovering that he has a gap in his education will make him
>> more reasonable. Hope springs eternal.
>
>From where I am sitting it's all gap and a few islets of instinct to
>let him tie his shoes and tell dick from pussy.
Too bad. I notice that he's still clinging to his failed position. Too
bad. Just a troll then, and not a very good one. Where have all the
pansies gone?
By the way, the view from where you're sitting seems to exceed the
spec for this particular model.
JTEM
James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Too bad. I notice that
I'd issue you the same challenge -- to "Prove a
negative" -- but your alter ego there already made
it clear that you're a couple of retards who fell for
some moron-bait they came across on Google.
(Psst, even in mathematics you only "Prove" a
positive, but even that wasn't his/your/it's biggest
error. Nope. That was pretending that mathematics
was the least bit relevant to the discussions here)
Good luck, shit for brains.
Tiglath
I see defeat when someone consistently makes a fool of himself.
You make a fool of yourself every time you dispute the academic
consensus without evidence for it -- one of your specialities.
You make a fool of yourself when you are given evidence and ignore and
believe that returning insults is a rebuttal.
You make a fool of yourself when you attempt to construct an argument
with specious reasoning and no evidence.
You make a fool of yourself when you snip your interlocutor's words in
a nonsensical manner.
That means that you make a fool of yourself on a daily basis numerous
times.
There is a name for that in and out of Usenet, and it's not
"victory."
Tiglath
Let me explain. You ARE boring. Your repartee is non-existent, and
behind your foul mouth there is an empty silo of ideas.
But that doesn't mean it's not fun exposing your ignorance and kicking
you ass at every turn.
Especially when you think that replying with the same repetitious shit
somehow means that you prevail in some way.
It's hilarious.
Tiglath
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:14:28 -0800 (PST), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 14, 4:48 pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:46:45 -0800 (PST), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> to dispute me then dispute me. All you're doing is
> >> >> spewing a sophomoric (f)Lame.
>
> >> >> Go on, construct an example where you "Prove" a
> >> >> negative, shit for brains.
>
>
> >> >I repeat this one so that you can catch up, dummie.
>
> >> >Here is a negative axiom of logic:
>
> >> >The Principle of Contradiction: contradictory statements cannot both
> >> >at the same time be true.
>
> >> >It's truth is not only self-evident but from it one can construct an
> >> >infinite number of provable negative propositions.
>
> >> >Putting it is a way you can understand:
>
> >> >The statements: "JTEM is a faggot," and, "JTEM is not a faggot,"
> >> >cannot both be true.
>
> >> >That's a proven negative.
>
> >> >(Especially when we know which statement is true.)
>
> >> Maybe discovering that he has a gap in his education will make him
> >> more reasonable. Hope springs eternal.
>
> >From where I am sitting it's all gap and a few islets of instinct to
> >let him tie his shoes and tell dick from pussy.
>
> Too bad. I notice that he's still clinging to his failed position. Too
> bad. Just a troll then, and not a very good one. Where have all the
> pansies gone?
John is too dedicated to the pursuing of gluteal happiness and not
dedicated enough to the pursuit of knowledge, hence his terrible
performance.
>
> By the way, the view from where you're sitting seems to exceed the
> spec for this particular model.
Sorry, had the rosy glasses on.
ADR
It is correct that "one cannot prove a negative" on the basis that
this is not an element of the scientific process. The scientific
process works on the observation of existing phenomena, the structure
of a hypothesis to explain this phenomena and experimentation and
further observation to verify (or reject) the hypothesis. The
scientific process cannot begin with the absence of something.
Negatives may be indeed part of a positive statement, but they are not
a departure for a proof.
Tiglath mistakes mathematical inequalities 3 < 5 with "negative
statements". This is totally erroneous. Inequalities and their
solution (and proof) has always been a branch of algebra. Those with
even a superficial smattering of algebra and basic high school
education would have known a basic fact as this:
http://www.sosmath.com/algebra/inequalities/ineq01/ineq01.html
This is what happens when one just peruses the web for quotable
entries. One finds stupid sites written by idiots that many other
idiots have quoted or linked to. This is how search engines work.
They give higher rank to sites that attract more visitors, independent
of the veracity of the claims within. What is required is real
knowledge
But education is not Tighath's strong suite. There is a real
determination there for argument for argument's sake and nothing
more. She and her alter egos account for the vast majority of
postings here. Thousands of them. She thrives on this stuff, likeky
a bitter and lonely individual getting vicarious pleasures by engaging
in irrelevant Usenet battles which she thinks she "wins". Pathetic.
Tiglath
> James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Too bad. I notice that
>
> I'd issue you the same challenge -- to "Prove a
> negative"
What's the use?
When he does you will say he did not, gratuitously, as you do every
time you face conclusive evidence that you are wrong.
The only reason I provide such evidence is not to persuade you but to
embarrass you.
Learn the difference, dummy.
-- but your alter ego there already made
> it clear that you're a couple of retards who fell for
> some moron-bait they came across on Google.
>
> (Psst, even in mathematics you only "Prove" a
> positive,
Obviously not in many cases, like the proof that one can NOT square
the circle.
It's a classic mathematical proof of a negative, and the fact that you
won't agree does not harm to the proof at all.
So you are fucked again.
Enjoy.
J Antero
"ADR" <aret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4629edf6-08fd-4cad...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 15, 3:41 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Too bad. I notice that
>
> I'd issue you the same challenge -- to "Prove a
> negative" -- but your alter ego there already made
> it clear that you're a couple of retards who fell for
> some moron-bait they came across on Google.
>
> (Psst, even in mathematics you only "Prove" a
> positive, but even that wasn't his/your/it's biggest
> error. Nope. That was pretending that mathematics
> was the least bit relevant to the discussions here)
>
> Good luck, shit for brains.
==
It is correct that "one cannot prove a negative" on the basis that
this is not an element of the scientific process. The scientific
process works on the observation of existing phenomena, the structure
of a hypothesis to explain this phenomena and experimentation and
further observation to verify (or reject) the hypothesis. The
scientific process cannot begin with the absence of something.
Negatives may be indeed part of a positive statement, but they are not
a departure for a proof.
==
White swans do not not exist.
If you know that white swans do exist, then you can consider that negative
statement to be proven.
The double negative allows any proven claim to form the basis of a proven
negative claim.
That's from logic, dummy. But let's get into common sense.
"There are no WMD weapons in Iraq".
Now, how do you prove that negative? You would have to: 1) have a solid
operative definition of what will be considered a WMD; then 2) be able to
search every square cm of the geographic definition of Iraq including below
ground, while preventing any subsequent introduction of WMD into already
searched areas.
That's not a relaistic possibility, so you can't really prove that negative.
"There is no sand in that bucket". Now, how do you prove that negative? You
walk over to the bucket and look in it to see if there is sand in it. If
you're an anal retentive, you seal the bucket hermetically and send it out
to a lab to be gone over with the best instrumentation available. If there
is not even one sand grain in it, then you have proven your negative claim.
<chuckle> Sad. But then you ARE a Macedonian,,, rather than being a
Greek.....
Tiglath
> On Nov 15, 3:41 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Too bad. I notice that
>
> > I'd issue you the same challenge -- to "Prove a
> > negative" -- but your alter ego there already made
> > it clear that you're a couple of retards who fell for
> > some moron-bait they came across on Google.
>
> > (Psst, even in mathematics you only "Prove" a
> > positive, but even that wasn't his/your/it's biggest
> > error. Nope. That was pretending that mathematics
> > was the least bit relevant to the discussions here)
>
> > Good luck, shit for brains.
>
> It is correct that "one cannot prove a negative" on the basis that
> this is not an element of the scientific process.
Welcome back. Hope you are feeling better.
A science worker like Anastassios making that statement is like a GM
worker saying that cars have two wheels.
Even after patient correction and being told that one of essential
tools of the Scientific Method is the falsification of hypotheses and
theories, but which one proves the negative proposition that a given
hypothesis or theory is not true, this goober continues to parade his
moronic ignorance.
ADR doesn't even suspect that every time I find a single counter-
example to the kind of absolute statements he is inclined to make, I
prove a negative proposition. The proposition that what his claim is
not true. Such proof are usually simpler than proving a positive
because a single counter-example suffices to falsify the claim. And
such proofs are daily routine for whoever uses the Scientific Method
and builds a proof of concept, a model, or a prototype and tries to
falsify it.
The Bunkmeister is back.
There is nothing we can say to this goober to change his fuzzy
thinking when loss of bonuses and employment have not done it for
him.
>
> Tiglath mistakes mathematical inequalities 3 < 5 with "negative
> statements". This is totally erroneous.
Hilarious. Our little Macedonian does not even know what a negative
statement is.
He is also maliciously paraphrasing me. I never said anything
about, "3 < 5"
This dishonorable worm has to resort to lying because he can't prevail
being fair and square.
Shame on you.
Not all mathematical inequalities express a negative statement, but
some do.
A mathematical inequality is a statement about the relative size of
two objects, or whether they are not equal.
The latter are a negative statement in the form of a mathematical
expression.
"Three is less than five" is not a negative statement, but "Three is
not equal to five" is a negative statement. And it's mathematical
representation is "3 != 5"
To disagree with that you must be retarded or Anastassions, but... I
repeat myself.
>
> But education is not Tighath's strong suite. There is a real
> determination there for argument for argument's sake and nothing
> more.
Sir you are a dishonorable liar, and not even lying you can't
prevail.
A bad liar, and a piece of terminated refuse still nipping at my
heels.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> I see defeat
And we're supposed to pretend that it's unusual for
crazy people to see things?
Sheesh!
ADR
> On Nov 15, 3:46 pm, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Tiglath mistakes mathematical inequalities 3 < 5 with "negative
> > statements". This is totally erroneous.
>
> Hilarious. Our little Macedonian does not even know what a negative
> statement is.
>
> He is also maliciously paraphrasing me. I never said anything
> about, "3 < 5"
>
> This dishonorable worm has to resort to lying because he can't prevail
> being fair and square.
>
> Shame on you
*****Liar*****:
The exact quote
"......
> It's just something silly I once heard... I mean, not
> being able to prove a negative? Sheesh!
As usual JTEM hears things and just repeats them as gospel.
There are lots of negatives that can be proven, idiot.
*******Five is not three, is one of them.****** (highlighted just for
you)
The only negative propositions that cannot be proven are universal
existential propositions, for they would necessitate to survey the
entire universe to prove them. Non-universal existential
propositions can often be proven.
................."
You write so much, you forget all the stupidities your brain dishes
out. And you lie and lie and lie. My guess is that you flank even
elementary algebra!!
Tiglath
Don’t you folks love every bone in his head?
Hell, I’ll just go along for the deride.
J Antero
�This is because there are boys and girls among us who have never overcome
the Randian infection. The Galt speech continues to ring in their ears for
years like a maddening tinnitus, turning each of them into what next year�s
Physicians� Desk Reference will (undoubtedly) term an Ayn Rand Asshole
(ARA). They constitute a relatively small percentage of Rand readers, these
ARAs. But they make their reading count. Thanks to them, the Rand Experience
is no longer limited to those who have read the books. It�s metastasized.
You, me, all of us, we�re living it. Because it�s the ARA Army of
antigovernment-antiregulation puritans who have spent the past three decades
gleefully pulling the cooling rods out of the American economy. For a while,
it got very big and very hot. Then it popped. And now the rest of us have to
spend the next decade scaling the slippery slopes of the huge suppurative
crater that was left behind.
Feeling fisted by the Invisible Hand of the Market lo these past fifteen
months? Lost a job lately? Or half the value of your 401(k)? Or a home? All
three? Been wondering whence the too-long-ascendant political and economic
ideas and forces behind Greenspanism, John Thainism, blind Wall Street
plunder, bankruptcy, credit-default swaps, Bernie Madoff, and the ensuing
Cannibalism in the Streets? Then you, sir, need to give thanks to Ayn Rand
Assholes everywhere�as well as the steely loins from which they sprang.�
Tiglath
> On Nov 15, 3:57 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 3:46 pm, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Tiglath mistakes mathematical inequalities 3 < 5 with "negative
> > > statements". This is totally erroneous.
>
> > Hilarious. Our little Macedonian does not even know what a negative
> > statement is.
>
> > He is also maliciously paraphrasing me. I never said anything
> > about, "3 < 5"
>
> > This dishonorable worm has to resort to lying because he can't prevail
> > being fair and square.
>
> > Shame on you
>
> *****Liar*****:
>
>
> The exact quote
>
> "......
>
> > It's just something silly I once heard... I mean, not
> > being able to prove a negative? Sheesh!
>
> As usual JTEM hears things and just repeats them as gospel.
>
> There are lots of negatives that can be proven, idiot.
>
> *******Five is not three, is one of them.****** (highlighted just for
> you)
>
This really takes the cake.
More signs that John's skull suffered extreme compression going
through the unusual birth canal that issued him into this world.
JTEM presents my saying "Five is not three" as evidence of my having
said "3 < 5."
Hilarius non plus ultra.
I guess John's parents were so disgusted with the disgrace John heaped
upon the family with his open sleazy gayness that decided to use his
college fund for a new Ford Pinto.
His is so badly educated that can't tell the difference between, "3 <
5," and "3 != 5."
> My guess is that you flank even elementary algebra!!
My guess is that you are stupid flank, front, rear, top, and
bottom.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Don’t you folks
What's the matter, got a little tired with all those
negatives you've been proving?
VtSkier
> from a GQ article....
> �This is because there are boys and girls among us who have never overcome
> Physicians� Desk Reference will (undoubtedly) term an Ayn Rand Asshole
> ARAs. But they make their reading count. Thanks to them, the Rand Experience
> You, me, all of us, we�re living it. Because it�s the ARA Army of
> gleefully pulling the cooling rods out of the American economy. For a while,
> it got very big and very hot. Then it popped. And now the rest of us have to
> spend the next decade scaling the slippery slopes of the huge suppurative
> crater that was left behind.
>
> Feeling fisted by the Invisible Hand of the Market lo these past fifteen
> months? Lost a job lately? Or half the value of your 401(k)? Or a home? All
> three? Been wondering whence the too-long-ascendant political and economic
> ideas and forces behind Greenspanism, John Thainism, blind Wall Street
> plunder, bankruptcy, credit-default swaps, Bernie Madoff, and the ensuing
> Cannibalism in the Streets? Then you, sir, need to give thanks to Ayn Rand
>
Hmmm, interesting article. I've just been reading the
life and times of Nicola Tesla. It almost seems to me
that if you change a few names, to Morgan, Astor, and
the like you have a similar situation almost exactly
one hundred years ago. It was following those times,
and the Great Depression, that governments started to
tighten up on financial free-for-alls. Then beginning
with Reagan, the cords loosened again to get what we
have now.
Paul J Gans
>J Antero wrote:
>> from a GQ article....
>> Physicians’ Desk Reference will (undoubtedly) term an Ayn Rand Asshole
>> ARAs. But they make their reading count. Thanks to them, the Rand Experience
>> You, me, all of us, we’re living it. Because it’s the ARA Army of
>> gleefully pulling the cooling rods out of the American economy. For a while,
>> it got very big and very hot. Then it popped. And now the rest of us have to
>> spend the next decade scaling the slippery slopes of the huge suppurative
>> crater that was left behind.
>>
>> Feeling fisted by the Invisible Hand of the Market lo these past fifteen
>> months? Lost a job lately? Or half the value of your 401(k)? Or a home? All
>> three? Been wondering whence the too-long-ascendant political and economic
>> ideas and forces behind Greenspanism, John Thainism, blind Wall Street
>> plunder, bankruptcy, credit-default swaps, Bernie Madoff, and the ensuing
>> Cannibalism in the Streets? Then you, sir, need to give thanks to Ayn Rand
>>
>Hmmm, interesting article. I've just been reading the
>life and times of Nicola Tesla. It almost seems to me
>that if you change a few names, to Morgan, Astor, and
>the like you have a similar situation almost exactly
>one hundred years ago. It was following those times,
>and the Great Depression, that governments started to
>tighten up on financial free-for-alls. Then beginning
>with Reagan, the cords loosened again to get what we
>have now.
Nobody reads Adam Smith any more. *HE* was of the opinions
that pure capitolism was OK for butchers and bakers, but that
any nation that did not regulate its bankers was asking for
big trouble.
Smith knew about excessive greed.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
ADR
What you do not get -and never will- is that in ***algebraic
inequalities***, the typical symbol is the equals sign cross by a
forward slash (/=). The > and < symbols are not used in solving
inequalities. I just used them for a brief notation and because I did
not exactly remember what you posted (which was copied from a stupid
web site as I found out). Which again shows you that you do not
understand even basic algebra and that you continue being a liar and a
pathological one at that.
> > My guess is that you flank even elementary algebra!!
>
> My guess is that you are stupid flank, front, rear, top, and
> bottom.
Wow.....now we are getting irritated, right? There is nothing worse
than being definitely being proven an idiot, is there? Now, go post
about 100 more posts with all the different user names you have and
let us know how clever you are.
James Beck
wrote:
>On Nov 15, 6:41�am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> �James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Too bad. I notice that
>>
>> I'd issue you the same challenge -- to "Prove a
>> negative"
>
>
>What's the use?
>
>When he does you will say he did not, gratuitously, as you do every
>time you face conclusive evidence that you are wrong.
>
>The only reason I provide such evidence is not to persuade you but to
>embarrass you.
>
>Learn the difference, dummy.
Under the axioms of arithmetic 2 plus 3 does not equal four. In plane
geometry, the interior angles of a triangle do not sum to 270 degrees
and parallel lines do not meet.
Sorry for piggy backing. I killfiled him long ago. Maybe I should have
waited. I find the brain's blindspots interesting, as you know. When I
was an undergrad, there was a peculiar intersection where about 9
students a year were killed. My guess is that they negatively
hallucinated the traffic in much the same way that people periodically
negatively hallucinate their keys. Traffic at that intersection was
always heavy during the day, but from time to time, you would see
someone, perhaps intent on getting to the library, step out into it.
In most instances, the drivers were able to stop. Otherwise the death
toll there would have been very high. Eventually, traffic engineers
gave up. They were at a loss to explain it, so the university built a
pedestrian overpass.
In this case, he knows that someone that he considers very smart told
him something like the belief that he now clings to despite the casual
obviousness that what he was told and what he thinks he heard must be
different things. Fascinating.
I wonder how many of your trucks will need to hit him before reality
does.
Renia
>>
>>> Damn. You really are retarded. The most obvious issue
>>> here, you retard, is that your "Proof" is lacking any
>>> proof.
>> How so?
>
> Like I said, I don't have the patience to teach a "Special
> Education" class.
>
>> A proof is simple an argument that compels the mind
>> to accept an assertion as true.
>
> No, honey, we're talking "Real Life" here. It is not and
> never has been about "Arguments," despite what lunatic
> reich wingers claim. It's about evidence, and what the
> evidence can demonstrate.
Plainly, you don't understand what an academic argument is. It's not a
quarrel, for a start.
Tiglath
>What you do not get -and never will- is that in
> ***algebraic inequalities***, the typical symbol
> is the equals sign cross by a forward slash (/=).
Irrelevant point which doesn't rescue you from the fact that you are a
liar.
The algebraic symbol for inequality is not the only mathematical
inequality operator in existence, twit. One can just as well use
the arithmetic operator for inequality of many computer languages (!
=). It's a matter of choice and makes no difference to its meaning,
and either can be used to express negative statements in mathematical
form. Duh!
You lose again, ignoramus.
"The > and < symbols are not used in solving inequalities."
KABOOM!!!
Anastassios falls flat on his face again. Man, it must hurt.
This is a daily chuckle folks. Every time this man tries to
extricate himself from the Gordian knots he tied his knickers into
yesterday, he ensnares himself in a bigger and bigger tangle. It's
pure slapstick comedy.
Mr. Retzios has the knack for never straying more than a few
keystrokes from a humiliating error, goof, a blunder, clanger, or
screamer.
What's the clinical term for this recalcitrant bungling, hostile
incompetence, aggressive mediocrity?
So '>' and '<' symbols are not used in solving inequalities, right?
WTF?
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/ineqlin.htm
http://www.themathpage.com/Alg/inequalities.htm
And why the fuck would you bring up '>' and '<' anyway? No one has
mentioned them in the topic at hand.
But I am glad you did, so we all can see your algebraic "skills."
Unfuckingbelievable,
Mon Dieu et Sacre Bleu!
What's for an encore?
> Which again shows you that you do not
> understand even basic algebra
That is as funny as hell.
>
> > > My guess is that you flank even elementary algebra!!
>
> > My guess is that you are stupid flank, front, rear, top, and
> > bottom.
>
> Wow.....now we are getting irritated, right? There is nothing worse
> than being definitely being proven an idiot, is there?
Actually there is. It's when you effect the proof yourself without
any help as you just did.
You are a tad ahead of JTEM at the moment. Rejoice.
> Now, go post about 100 more posts with all the different user
> names you have and let us know how clever you are.
Your serious tone leaves no doubt that you cannot laugh at
yourself.
You'll be glad to know that others and I are most happy to do it for
you.
How's Bay Clinical doing Mr. Retzios? Had a good quarter?
Anastassios runs a little business from his garage, purporting to do
R&D for a fee.
Can you imagine paying this goober good cash for anything requiring
scientific acumen?
What kind of incompetence must be lurking in a mind which insists that
proving a negative "is not an element of the scientific process," and
that the symbols '<' and '>' are not used in solving inequalities?
It boggles the mind.
How can he con anyone with his confused bunk for more than a day?
Tiglath
Your mother regrets not having christened the placenta instead.
Tiglath
------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE:
Our hilarious friend laid another egg yesterday and I bring it to you
still warm...
8. "The > and < symbols are not used in solving inequalities."
And as I stopped laughing, I fell on the floor chuckling convulsively
when I saw this in the same post:
" Which again shows you that you do not understand even basic algebra"
JTEM move over.
----------------------------------------------------------
1. "In WWII, the winter was not an element in the German defeat."
2. "In the Great Northern War, the Russian defeat of the Swedes and
their allies had nothing to do with winter."
3. 'There has never been a "Sophist Movement".'
4. (And words to the effect that Protagoras was not a Sophist.)
5. "[P]roving a negative, which is a scientific impossibility."
6. "Nor were sophists lawyers as the term or even the function did not
apply in antiquity."
7. "Polybius, for example, had little love for the Romans."
8. "The > and < symbols are not used in solving inequalities."
Hilariously quotable are also ADR's statements to the effect that
Bertrand Russell (On Protagoras) was an old fart, and that Professor
Kerferd (On the Sophistic Movement) had a scant education.
There are many more, of course, including a fine collection of howlers
regarding Alexander the Great, which deserved especial treatment since
Mr. Retzios is a Macedonian and often plays an Alexandrine expert in
these precincts.
See: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/0ce06283b19276af
---------------------------------------------
(Some) CONTRARY EVIDENCE
1. "The Germans unprepared for the rigors of winter campaigning,
suffered great privations and heavy losses."
-- Churchill, W. S., 1950, The Second World War, Volume IV
"The Hinge of Fate," p. 306. Mariner Books
2. "For much of the day, a blizzard engulfed both armies, making
attacks impossible. However, at midday, the winds changed and the
snowstorm blew directly into the eyes of the Russians. Charles XII saw
his
opportunity and advanced on the Russian army under cover of the
weather."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_%281700%29
The winter considerably delayed the ultimate Russian defeat
of Sweden, by preventing an early Russian victory early in the war.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophist_movement&redirect=no
http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Sophist-Movement/128829
http://www.bookrags.com/essay-2004/8/5/123133/3720
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521283574
http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631210610_ch...
4. "The great pre-Socratic systems that we have been considering were
confronted, in the latter half of the fifth century, by a sceptical
movement, in which the most important figure was Protagoras, chief of
the Sophists."
-- Russell, B, 1945, "A History of Western
Philosophy, 1945, p.73, Simon and Schuster.
From: The Older Sophists: A Complete Translation By Several Hands Of
The Fragments. By Hermann Diels, Rosamond Kent Sprague
Diogenes Laertius (c. 250 ?) mentions the titles of eleven surviving
books by Protagoras, meaning that while Laertius wrote centuries after
Protagoras he must have had a good idea of his works, an he has this
to say:
"Protagoras was the first man to exact a fee of one hundred minas. He
was also the first to [...] expound the importance of the right
moment, to conduct debates, and to introduce disputants to the tricks
of argument." In other words, he is describing a Sophist.
Philostratus "the Athenian" (c. 170-247) in his "Lives of the
Sophists" starts with: "Protagoras of Abdera, the sophist, became a
disciple of Democritus [...]"
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263 – c. 339) in his Chronicle: "Euripides...
is held in renown, and so is Protagoras the sophist, whose books the
Athenians burned [...]"
Timon of Phlius (c. 320-230 B.C.) in Lampoons: "...afterwards, too, to
Protagoras among the sophists, a man with clear voice, eyes straight
on the mark, and able for any work."
Clement of Alexandria (c.150 - 215) in Miscellanies: "Every argument
has an opposite argument, say the Greeks, following Protagoras."
Seneca (c. 4 BC – AD 65) in Letters: Protagoras says that one can
argue equally well on either side of any question, including the
question itself of whether both sides of any question can be
argued." He is describing a Sophist.
Aristophanes (c. 446 – c. 386 BC) in the Clouds or The School For
Sophists. Introductory Note by Alan Somerstein: "It all had started,
as far as Athens was concerned, with Protagoras, who had spread the
gospel that it didn't matter whether the gods existed and that all
values were relative."
5. http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/99adf8666f08e4ff
6. Robert J. Bonner, Lawyers and Litigants in Ancient Athens: The
Genesis of the Legal Profession (New York: Benjamin Blom).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Cincia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero
7. Polybius wrote a monumental eulogy to Rome in his Magnus Opus,
Historiae, while in the favor of the very Scipio family.
8. http://www.purplemath.com/modules/ineqlin.htm
http://www.themathpage.com/Alg/inequalities.htm
Tiglath
>
> Under the axioms of arithmetic 2 plus 3 does not equal four. In plane
> geometry, the interior angles of a triangle do not sum to 270 degrees
> and parallel lines do not meet.
>
> Sorry for piggy backing. I killfiled him long ago. Maybe I should have
> waited.
You should. If the day is not going to well, a stock tumbles, lunch
sucked, your secretary is getting chubby, some asshole keyed your
Maserati, got outbid on a great condo in St. John, Windows crashed
before you could save an inspired love letter...
One look at a JTEM's post (or ADR's) and you feel blessed, lucky,
smart, privileged, in the game, and riding the crest of a high and
beautiful wave.
> I find the brain's blindspots interesting, as you know.
You've been here a long time, friend. It's a rich field.
> When I was an undergrad, there was a peculiar intersection
> where about 9
> students a year were killed. My guess is that they negatively
> hallucinated the traffic in much the same way that people periodically
> negatively hallucinate their keys. Traffic at that intersection was
> always heavy during the day, but from time to time, you would see
> someone, perhaps intent on getting to the library, step out into it.
> In most instances, the drivers were able to stop. Otherwise the death
> toll there would have been very high. Eventually, traffic engineers
> gave up. They were at a loss to explain it, so the university built a
> pedestrian overpass.
>
Yep. Same here; I've given up trying to persuade those goobers; it's
all take now, no give.
> In this case, he knows that someone that he considers very smart told
> him something like the belief that he now clings to despite the casual
> obviousness that what he was told and what he thinks he heard must be
> different things. Fascinating.
>
And the negative compulsion of not admitting error, that's a biggie.
Same as the Brits are terrified of being embarrassed, these goobers
can't stand the thought of saying, "I was wrong." In their feeble
minds it's the talisman of failure.
ADR is particular funny in how hard strains to rationalize what's
obviously wrong, and in the process he sinks deeper in his own turd.
And it's a free show. Great value.
> I wonder how many of your trucks will need to hit him before reality
> does.
Holding breath not recommended.
Soren Larsen
Qouting ADR
> 2. "In the Great Northern War, the Russian defeat of the Swedes and
> their allies had nothing to do with winter."
Tiglath:
>
> 2. "For much of the day, a blizzard engulfed both armies, making
> attacks impossible. However, at midday, the winds changed and the
> snowstorm blew directly into the eyes of the Russians. Charles XII saw
> his
> opportunity and advanced on the Russian army under cover of the
> weather."
>
> -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_%281700%29
>
> The winter considerably delayed the ultimate Russian defeat
> of Sweden, by preventing an early Russian victory early in the war.
Hmmmm!
I guess the GNW is virgin territory to both of you.
That a blizzard helped Sweden at Narva does not mean that
the defeat of Sweden had something to do with the Russian winter.
The prelude to Poltava otoh show quite clearly that the russian
winter contributed to the swedish defeat.
Tiglath
> Tiglath wrote:
>
> Qouting ADR
>
> > 2. "In the Great Northern War, the Russian defeat of the Swedes and
> > their allies had nothing to do with winter."
>
> Tiglath:
>
>
>
> > 2. "For much of the day, a blizzard engulfed both armies, making
> > attacks impossible. However, at midday, the winds changed and the
> > snowstorm blew directly into the eyes of the Russians. Charles XII saw
> > his
> > opportunity and advanced on the Russian army under cover of the
> > weather."
>
>
> > The winter considerably delayed the ultimate Russian defeat
> > of Sweden, by preventing an early Russian victory early in the war.
>
> Hmmmm!
>
> I guess the GNW is virgin territory to both of you.
How patronizing.
>
> That a blizzard helped Sweden at Narva does not mean that
> the defeat of Sweden had something to do with the Russian winter.
Winter certainly did; it delayed Russia's eventual victory.
>
> The prelude to Poltava otoh show quite clearly that the russian
> winter contributed to the swedish defeat.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poltava
This is what I replied originally in September 12, and left out for
brevity.
-----------------------------
In the Battle of Narva (November 30, 1700) winter was a crucial
element against the Russians.
"For much of the day, a blizzard engulfed both armies, making attacks
impossible. However, at midday, the winds changed and the snowstorm
blew directly into the eyes of the Russians. Charles XII saw his
opportunity and advanced on the Russian army under cover of the
weather."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_%281700%29
It looks like winter considerably delayed the ultimate Russian defeat
of Sweden, by preventing an early Russian victory early in the war.
So much for the early war...
Later when the Russian regained their strength winter was a
significant factor against the Swedes, so that the winter of 1708-1709
became known as the Coldest Winter in Memory, in both song and
literature. The extreme cold of that winter and disease weakened
Charles army a few months before his defeat on June 1709 at the Battle
of Poltava.
------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/82994095dba9df5d
Soren Larsen
> On Nov 16, 1:27 pm, "Soren Larsen" <Wagn...@yahoo.youknowwhere> wrote:
>> Tiglath wrote:
>>
>> Qouting ADR
>>
>>> 2. "In the Great Northern War, the Russian defeat of the Swedes and
>>> their allies had nothing to do with winter."
>>
>> Tiglath:
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2. "For much of the day, a blizzard engulfed both armies, making
>>> attacks impossible. However, at midday, the winds changed and the
>>> snowstorm blew directly into the eyes of the Russians. Charles XII
>>> saw his
>>> opportunity and advanced on the Russian army under cover of the
>>> weather."
>>
>>> --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_%281700%29
>>
>>> The winter considerably delayed the ultimate Russian defeat
>>> of Sweden, by preventing an early Russian victory early in the war.
>>
>> Hmmmm!
>>
>> I guess the GNW is virgin territory to both of you.
>
> How patronizing.
Just a guess based on my (in your case) knowledge
of your interests.
>
>
>>
>> That a blizzard helped Sweden at Narva does not mean that
>> the defeat of Sweden had something to do with the Russian winter.
>
> Winter certainly did; it delayed Russia's eventual victory.
How do you know?
There is no certainty that Charles would lose at Narva without the blizzard.
He was an unknown quantity who showed himself as an a first rate battle
commander
Even if he did lose there is no certainty that it would knock Sweden out of
the war.
The swedish army was still of superior quality compared to the russians
and Charles was stubborn bordering the insane.
He might well temporarily knock out the russians at a later stage.
>
>
>>
>> The prelude to Poltava otoh show quite clearly that the russian
>> winter contributed to the swedish defeat.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poltava
>
> This is what I replied originally in September 12, and left out for
> brevity.
Sorry
I did not see that.
We certainly agree that winter played a role in the swedish
defeat.
IMHO Sweden was most likely doomed from the start though.
--
History is not what it used to be.
Tiglath
>
> >> That a blizzard helped Sweden at Narva does not mean that
> >> the defeat of Sweden had something to do with the Russian winter.
>
> > Winter certainly did; it delayed Russia's eventual victory.
>
> How do you know?
>
Two ways. First just by thinking about it. There is a war,
contenders A & B meet in battle several times, the more battles A wins
the more difficult it becomes for B to win the war.
Secondly, because I can read. It was not just a defeat but a crushing
Russian defeat, which left most of the Russian arms and equipment in
the enemy's possession, not to mention a large number of prisoners.
It also meant that the Swedes retained Narva and the Russians had to
try a second time. The attempt involved waiting four years and
sacrificing some 13,000 troops to finally capture it.
If all that did not contribute to a delay to Russia's final victory I
don't what could have.
> There is no certainty that Charles would lose at Narva without the blizzard.
>
That's another argument. Please read carefully. The statement I
dispute does not say that winter was not the decisive factor, it says
it was not a factor at all.
"[...] the Russian defeat of the Swedes and their allies had nothing
to do with winter."
>
> Even if he did lose there is no certainty that it would knock Sweden out of
> the war.
>
Not in dispute. All I said is that the Russian reversal prolonged
their time to victory.
>
> >> The prelude to Poltava otoh show quite clearly that the russian
> >> winter contributed to the swedish defeat.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poltava
>
> > This is what I replied originally in September 12, and left out for
> > brevity.
>
> Sorry
>
> I did not see that.
>
No problem. I did not posted it in the "Quotable ADR" thread either,
though I should have.
> We certainly agree that winter played a role in the swedish
> defeat.
>
That much is obvious after the most perfunctory review of that war.
> IMHO Sweden was most likely doomed from the start though.
>
It's the "size matter" again. Russia had the resources to rally, and
Peter was no Darius, much as Charles dreamed of being Alexander.
Soren Larsen
> On Nov 16, 3:37 pm, "Soren Larsen" <Wagn...@yahoo.youknowwhere> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>> That a blizzard helped Sweden at Narva does not mean that
>>>> the defeat of Sweden had something to do with the Russian winter.
>>
>>> Winter certainly did; it delayed Russia's eventual victory.
>>
>> How do you know?
>>
>
> Two ways. First just by thinking about it. There is a war,
> contenders A & B meet in battle several times, the more battles A wins
> the more difficult it becomes for B to win the war.
>
> Secondly, because I can read. It was not just a defeat but a crushing
> Russian defeat, which left most of the Russian arms and equipment in
> the enemy's possession, not to mention a large number of prisoners.
> It also meant that the Swedes retained Narva and the Russians had to
> try a second time. The attempt involved waiting four years and
> sacrificing some 13,000 troops to finally capture it.
>
> If all that did not contribute to a delay to Russia's final victory I
> don't what could have.
The argument against that view is, that the complete defeat at Narva
triggered
Peters modernisation of the russian army, or at least provided him with
a powerfull argument for the reforms.
My initial beef was however that the wear and tear of winter on
the swedish army, and the lousy supply lines during winter in
Russia, had much more influence on the war than the blizzard at Narva
and we seem to agree on that.
Soren
ADR
Well, Soren, those who lose always blame the weather as if the
Russians were some kind of supermen impervious to the winter. What
lost the battle of Poltava for the Swedes was not the Russian winter
but a series of fatal mistakes by of Charles XII each of which would
have caused disaster. He moved into the middle of hostile territory
depending on supplies on the undependable Mazepa who failed to provide
them. He moved into the middle of hostile territory with relatively
few troops believing in the elan and superiority of Swedish army over
the Russian one without being aware of the progress accomplished by
Peter in reforming the Russian army. Even with the weakened and
disease-ridden army, he continued to press on, thinking, I guess that
his opponents were mere pushovers. He started the battle against a
much superior force with little usable gunpowder. And despite all
these deficiencies and with tired and hungry and sick men devoid of
ammunition he launched an attack against Russian redoubts even when
the Russians had a huge artillery superiority. What made Poltava
remotely a fight was the Russians were just too cautious in finalizing
their victory. A more confident Russian general would have finished
the Swedes in half the time. Peter was just too lucky to have an
opponent who provided him with such an easy victory. Not many
generals are that lucky.
Charles XII had many avenues to achieve victory in the Great Northern
War. Instead of leaving Russia alone for many years to recoup from
the disaster at Narva, he could have pressed the issue and forced its
exit from the war. In 1709, he could have retreated from the Ukraine
in good order in the spring when supplies failed to materialize and
disease seriously diminished his army. And after Poltava, he could
have gone back to Sweden instead of spending time in Constantinople
trying to convince the Ottomans to attack the Russians. In his
absence, Peter managed to consolidate his gains.
What really detoothed Sweden was the fact that Peter managed to defeat
the Swedish navy repeatedly with the use of galleys. In 1720, the
Russian Navy defeated the Swedish navy in the battle of Granhamnsholm
and the following year it raided almost unopposed the coastal cities
and towns of Sweden, forcing Swedish capitulation. Just note that
these events happened more than a decade after the battle of Poltava.
The battle of Granhamnsholm was fought in mid-summer (August, if I
recollect correctly). It was the pivotal battle that ended the Great
Northern War. Poltava was important but not crucial. If the Swedish
navy had retained control of the Baltic, it could have held the coast
and coastal fortresses and eventually denied any substantial Russian
victory.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What's the matter, got a little tired with all those
> > negatives you've been proving?
>
> Your
You didn't answer the question. No, really, you didn't.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> JTEM move over.
Why on earth are you trying to involve me in your
little lover's spat?
> 5. "[P]roving a negative, which is a scientific impossibility."
He's right about that one, shit for brains.
James Beck
wrote:
>On Nov 15, 11:00�pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Under the axioms of arithmetic 2 plus 3 does not equal four. In plane
>> geometry, the interior angles of a triangle do not sum to 270 degrees
>> and parallel lines do not meet.
>>
>> Sorry for piggy backing. I killfiled him long ago. Maybe I should have
>> waited.
>
>You should. If the day is not going to well, a stock tumbles, lunch
>sucked, your secretary is getting chubby, some asshole keyed your
>Maserati, got outbid on a great condo in St. John, Windows crashed
>before you could save an inspired love letter...
>
>One look at a JTEM's post (or ADR's) and you feel blessed, lucky,
>smart, privileged, in the game, and riding the crest of a high and
>beautiful wave.
Here's hoping my self-esteem never slips that low...
Tiglath
------------------------------------------------------------
And more from those came from...
9. "In fact, it was his [Nero's] effort to rebuilt Rome that cost him
his throne because he imposed high taxes on the wealthy."
That's the piece of bunk Anastassios duped Giwer with. And Giwer
bought it. And no one else seemed to notice either -- sorry comment
not only for ADR but also for soc.history.ancient.
----------------------------------------------------------
1. "In WWII, the winter was not an element in the German defeat."
2. "In the Great Northern War, the Russian defeat of the Swedes and
their allies had nothing to do with winter."
3. 'There has never been a "Sophist Movement".'
4. (And words to the effect that Protagoras was not a Sophist.)
5. "[P]roving a negative, which is a scientific impossibility."
6. "Nor were sophists lawyers as the term or even the function did not
apply in antiquity."
7. "Polybius, for example, had little love for the Romans."
8. "The > and < symbols are not used in solving inequalities."
9. "In fact, it was his [Nero's] effort to rebuilt Rome that cost him
his throne because he imposed high taxes on the wealthy."
See: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/0ce06283b19276af
---------------------------------------------
(Some) CONTRARY EVIDENCE
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_%281700%29
5. http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/99adf8666f08e4ff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Cincia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero
9. “He was dethroned in the end not because he was cruel or unjust,
as was later pretended, but simply because music had taken
possession of him to the exclusion of almost everything else;
and
his critics are unanimous in blaming him for his frivolity in
allowing
himself to become absorbed in anything so trivial.”
-- Weigall, A. 1930, Nero The Singing Emperor of Rome,
p. 355,56, Garden City
Tiglath
<blabbersnip>
I simple "I was wrong" would have sufficed, Retzios.
Tiglath
You two should get a room, and bust your brains pushing each other's
shit.
Tiglath
Tiglath
Your style is detestable but it’s not the worse thing about you.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Your
Quite dodging, pussy boy. Are you or are you not
all tuckered out from those negatives you imagine
proving?
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> You
He's right about that one, shit for brains. You can't
prove a negative.
Well, *You* couldn't prove a positive for that matter.
What I meant was that nobody can prove a negative.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> 5. "[P]roving a negative, which is a scientific impossibility."
He's right about that one, shit for brains.
SolomonW
> In soc.history.medieval VtSkier <vts...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>J Antero wrote:
>>> from a GQ article....
>>> 嚙踝蕭This is because there are boys and girls among us who have never overcome
>>> the Randian infection. The Galt speech continues to ring in their ears for
>>> years like a maddening tinnitus, turning each of them into what next year嚙踝蕭s
>>> Physicians嚙踝蕭 Desk Reference will (undoubtedly) term an Ayn Rand Asshole
>>> (ARA). They constitute a relatively small percentage of Rand readers, these
>>> ARAs. But they make their reading count. Thanks to them, the Rand Experience
>>> is no longer limited to those who have read the books. It嚙踝蕭s metastasized.
>>> You, me, all of us, we嚙踝蕭re living it. Because it嚙踝蕭s the ARA Army of
>>> antigovernment-antiregulation puritans who have spent the past three decades
>>> gleefully pulling the cooling rods out of the American economy. For a while,
>>> it got very big and very hot. Then it popped. And now the rest of us have to
>>> spend the next decade scaling the slippery slopes of the huge suppurative
>>> crater that was left behind.
>>>
>>> Feeling fisted by the Invisible Hand of the Market lo these past fifteen
>>> months? Lost a job lately? Or half the value of your 401(k)? Or a home? All
>>> three? Been wondering whence the too-long-ascendant political and economic
>>> ideas and forces behind Greenspanism, John Thainism, blind Wall Street
>>> plunder, bankruptcy, credit-default swaps, Bernie Madoff, and the ensuing
>>> Cannibalism in the Streets? Then you, sir, need to give thanks to Ayn Rand
>>> Assholes everywhere嚙碼as well as the steely loins from which they sprang.嚙踝蕭
>>>
>
>>Hmmm, interesting article. I've just been reading the
>>life and times of Nicola Tesla. It almost seems to me
>>that if you change a few names, to Morgan, Astor, and
>>the like you have a similar situation almost exactly
>>one hundred years ago. It was following those times,
>>and the Great Depression, that governments started to
>>tighten up on financial free-for-alls. Then beginning
>>with Reagan, the cords loosened again to get what we
>>have now.
>
> Nobody reads Adam Smith any more.
Few reads him today because he is so difficult to read.
> *HE* was of the opinions
> that pure capitolism was OK for butchers and bakers, but that
> any nation that did not regulate its bankers was asking for
> big trouble.
I do not remember that.
The problem Adam Smith saw was when merchants (or bankers) could manipulate
the political system to their own advantage.
>
> Smith knew about excessive greed.
Smith saw this as a virtue.
Tiglath
Says who?
Tiglath
> What I meant was that nobody can prove a negative.
How can you be so sure if your statement is itself a negative?
You have some explaining to do.
Soren Larsen
Neither me nor Tiglath are swedish.
> What
> lost the battle of Poltava for the Swedes was not the Russian winter
> but a series of fatal mistakes by of Charles XII each of which would
> have caused disaster. He moved into the middle of hostile territory
> depending on supplies on the undependable Mazepa who failed to provide
> them. He moved into the middle of hostile territory with relatively
> few troops believing in the elan and superiority of Swedish army over
> the Russian one without being aware of the progress accomplished by
> Peter in reforming the Russian army. Even with the weakened and
> disease-ridden army, he continued to press on, thinking, I guess that
> his opponents were mere pushovers.
Why do you think it was weakened and disease-ridden?
Winter!
He started the battle against a
> much superior force with little usable gunpowder. And despite all
> these deficiencies and with tired and hungry and sick men devoid of
> ammunition he launched an attack against Russian redoubts even when
> the Russians had a huge artillery superiority.
Business as usual for Charles.
He usually attacked superior forces and got away with it.
The enemies were btw not always russian.
Anyway was Poltava a supply depot, something Charles badly needed
if he wanted the continued existence of the his army.
> What made Poltava
> remotely a fight was the Russians were just too cautious in finalizing
> their victory. A more confident Russian general would have finished
> the Swedes in half the time. Peter was just too lucky to have an
> opponent who provided him with such an easy victory. Not many
> generals are that lucky.
I think you pretty much can count on an attack on filled depot
in the middle of a russian winter from an army running on the last
scraps of supplies.
>
> Charles XII had many avenues to achieve victory in the Great Northern
> War. Instead of leaving Russia alone for many years to recoup from
> the disaster at Narva, he could have pressed the issue and forced its
> exit from the war.
Which would mean that Peter undisturbed could prepare for phase two
of the war.
Which was exactly what Denmark and Saxony did.
Charles stubborn as he were was not going to yield at the negotiating table,
and
the alliance against Sweden knew that Sweden sure as hell would
lose a war of attrition.
>In 1709, he could have retreated from the Ukraine
> in good order in the spring when supplies failed to materialize and
> disease seriously diminished his army.
This would win the war how?
> And after Poltava, he could
> have gone back to Sweden instead of spending time in Constantinople
> trying to convince the Ottomans to attack the Russians. In his
> absence, Peter managed to consolidate his gains.
Sweden desperately needed allies after the anglo-dutch had
given the go ahead to Denmark and Saxony.
>
> What really detoothed Sweden was the fact that Peter managed to defeat
> the Swedish navy repeatedly with the use of galleys. In 1720, the
> Russian Navy defeated the Swedish navy in the battle of Granhamnsholm
They defeated a meagre swedish squadron of 1 sol and 4 frigates.
Hardly a significant battle
> and the following year it raided almost unopposed the coastal cities
> and towns of Sweden, forcing Swedish capitulation. Just note that
> these events happened more than a decade after the battle of Poltava.
> The battle of Granhamnsholm was fought in mid-summer (August, if I
> recollect correctly). It was the pivotal battle that ended the Great
> Northern War. Poltava was important but not crucial. If the Swedish
> navy had retained control of the Baltic, it could have held the coast
> and coastal fortresses and eventually denied any substantial Russian
> victory.
You are seriously confused.
Sweden lost control of the Baltic because Denmark reentered the war
with the nod from the british and dutch.
This happened in 1709, by 1720 the main swedish navy was rotting
in harbour.
am...@hotmail.com
> Tiglath wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 3:37 pm, "Soren Larsen" <Wagn...@yahoo.youknowwhere> wrote:
>
> >>>> That a blizzard helped Sweden at Narva does not mean that
> >>>> the defeat of Sweden had something to do with the Russian winter.
>
> >>> Winter certainly did; it delayed Russia's eventual victory.
>
> >> How do you know?
>
> > Two ways. First just by thinking about it. There is a war,
> > contenders A & B meet in battle several times, the more battles A wins
> > the more difficult it becomes for B to win the war.
>
> > Secondly, because I can read. It was not just a defeat but a crushing
> > Russian defeat, which left most of the Russian arms and equipment in
> > the enemy's possession, not to mention a large number of prisoners.
> > It also meant that the Swedes retained Narva and the Russians had to
> > try a second time. The attempt involved waiting four years and
> > sacrificing some 13,000 troops to finally capture it.
>
> > If all that did not contribute to a delay to Russia's final victory I
> > don't what could have.
>
> The argument against that view is, that the complete defeat at Narva
> triggered
> Peters modernisation of the russian army, or at least provided him with
> a powerfull argument for the reforms.
>
the Russian army started not only before Narva but before Peter's
birth. Modernization related to Peter personally did not need any
specific argumentation because (AFAIK) nobody objected against it.
It can be (and was) argued that disaster at Narva increased temp of
these reforms but this is one of the cases difficult to prove one way
or another (prove that without defeat at Narva Peter would do things
substantially differently or even less efficiently than he did in a
real life). Neither was defeat at Narva critical in the terms of a
"human material": most of the captured soldiers had been released by
the Swedes and within few months Scheremetiev had been operating in
the area with an overwhelming force (did not save him from some
defeats but on a balance he was victorious).
am...@hotmail.com
The territory was not uniformely "hostile": Zaparozcy joined Charles
and they were, presumably, the best Ukrainian warriors. Mazepa was not
"undependable": he joined Charles as well. It is just that the
Russians managed to get to the critical point(s) before Charles.
Baturin, with all its supplies was taken and destroyed and execution
of it garrisson sent a signal to the ...er... "undecided" (unlike
Zaparozcy, most of the Ukrainian Cossacs had tangible things to
loose).
It can be argued that the whole campaign was too risky, that it was
too far from the places where it could seriously hurt Peter, etc.
However, a spectacular success in Ukraine could prompt the Khan to
join the winning alliance (meaning that even Moscow would not be safe
from a potential attack) and, under optimistic scenario, even the
Ottomans could start a war. This combination would, most probably
force Peter to sue for peace.
> He moved into the middle of hostile territory with relatively
> few troops
IIRC, he started campaign with something like 40K Swedes (perhaps
more) under his immediate command. At this time very few people in
Europe would consider this army (with this leader) inadequate for
almost any imaginable task.
>believing in the elan and superiority of Swedish army over
> the Russian one without being aware of the progress accomplished by
> Peter in reforming the Russian army.
This progress did not prevent Russians from losing at Holowczyn with
having 3:1 numeric advantage in a fortified defensive position.
Typically, Peter punished a commander (Repnin) who lost because he did
not received reenforcements from his cautious superiors (who acted on
Peter's orders to avoid any open-field engagement).
> Even with the weakened and
> disease-ridden army,
Any army of this period was "weakened" after few marches and the same
goes for being "disease-ridden". The Russian army would suffer from
the diseases at least to the same degree.
>he continued to press on, thinking, I guess that
> his opponents were mere pushovers. He started the battle against a
> much superior force with little usable gunpowder.
There was a big time gap between him "pressing on" and Poltava
battle.
> And despite all
> these deficiencies and with tired and hungry and sick men
Not sure why would they be excessively tired unless all of them had
been digging trenches during the siege of Poltava (which I doubt).
They were not necessarily hungry as well because Poltava area is one
of the richest places in Ukraine and, if anything, Zaporozci were good
in looting and scavenging.
> devoid of
> ammunition he launched an attack against Russian redoubts
Taking into an account that the battle started with a cavalry
engagement in front of the Russian redoubts, he was not necessarily
aware of their existence and definitely was not aware of their extent
and strenght (the earthworks contined overnight) until after attack
was launched.
> even when
> the Russians had a huge artillery superiority.
AFAIK, most of the Russian artillery was in the main camp, well behind
the redoubts.
> What made Poltava
> remotely a fight was the Russians were just too cautious in finalizing
> their victory.
Even at the (almost) last stage of the battle the Swedish attack on
the Russian center was initially successful.
>A more confident Russian general would have finished
> the Swedes in half the time.
This general would have to have a different army: Peter's army hardly
could maneuver on a battlefield and was rather limited in its ability
to attack. Of course, Menshikov was bragging that he is going to
defeat Swedes on the line of redoubts exclusively with a cavalry.
Can't say how justified was he in his claim because Peter promptly
removed him from command and ordered cavalry to retreat.
> Peter was just too lucky to have an
> opponent who provided him with such an easy victory.
Charles was winning the battles against similar numeric odds.
>Not many
> generals are that lucky.
He was lucky that at critical point when the Russian center was almost
broken he had enough reserves AND enough of a self-posession to bring
these reserves to the critical point and contain Swedish advance.
After this, combination of a numeric superiority and advantage in
artillery won the battle. Quility of the Russian troops of course
improved over the years of fighting but almost the besty thing Peter
could say about them was that they had been firing in an orderly
fashion.
>
> Charles XII had many avenues to achieve victory in the Great Northern
> War. Instead of leaving Russia alone for many years to recoup from
> the disaster at Narva, he could have pressed the issue and forced its
> exit from the war.
Taking into an account that the only Russian cities of any importance
anywhere close to the area w\ere Novgorod and Pskov and that at this
time none of these cioties was of any substantial importance for
Russia's survival, "pressing issue" to any decisive result would be
rather difficult as long as Peter was willing to keep fighting. BTW,
if Charles' Poltava adventure was risky, similar adventure into REALLY
hostile territory with much smaller army would be even more so.
> In 1709, he could have retreated from the Ukraine
> in good order in the spring when supplies failed to materialize and
> disease seriously diminished his army.
Yes, he could and Peter (IIRC) even was making some proposals (all of
which would leave Charles with the territorial losses). For how long
would this peace continue after Charles moved out of Ukraine? What
would be Charles' mposition in Poland after inglorious retreat?
> And after Poltava, he could
> have gone back to Sweden instead of spending time in Constantinople
> trying to convince the Ottomans to attack the Russians.
Actually, this was unsuccessful but quite reasonable idea taking into
an account that the Ottomans were the only potential ally capable to
lick <whatever> out of Peter.
> In his
> absence, Peter managed to consolidate his gains.
>
Big part of Ingiria and Estonia had been lost before 1709
> What really detoothed Sweden was the fact that Peter managed to defeat
> the Swedish navy repeatedly with the use of galleys.
> In 1720, the
> Russian Navy defeated the Swedish navy in the battle of Granhamnsholm
> and the following year it raided almost unopposed the coastal cities
> and towns of Sweden, forcing Swedish capitulation.
By this time Swedish cause was, for all practical reasons, lost and
expe
> Just note that
> these events happened more than a decade after the battle of Poltava.
> The battle of Granhamnsholm was fought in mid-summer (August, if I
> recollect correctly). It was the pivotal battle that ended the Great
> Northern War. Poltava was important but not crucial. If the Swedish
> navy had retained control of the Baltic, it could have held the coast
> and coastal fortresses
>and eventually denied any substantial Russian
> victory
Riga and Revel were captured well before Russian naval victories on
Baltics and St-Petersburg came to an existence before any noticeable
Russian Baltic fleet had been built. Capture of 2 major Baltic ports
and foundattion of a new port on conquered territory surely can count
as sibstantial victories. .
ADR
> > What
> > lost the battle of Poltava for the Swedes was not the Russian winter
> > but a series of fatal mistakes by of Charles XII each of which would
> > have caused disaster. He moved into the middle of hostile territory
> > depending on supplies on the undependable Mazepa who failed to provide
> > them. He moved into the middle of hostile territory with relatively
> > few troops believing in the elan and superiority of Swedish army over
> > the Russian one without being aware of the progress accomplished by
> > Peter in reforming the Russian army. Even with the weakened and
> > disease-ridden army, he continued to press on, thinking, I guess that
> > his opponents were mere pushovers.
>
> Why do you think it was weakened and disease-ridden?
>
> Winter!
No! Winter was a given. The man and the army were Swedes for Christ's
sake. They did not come from equitorial New Guinea to fight in
Russia. Peter's army would have been as much in tatters if he had
failed to feed it and house it. What made the situation appalling was
the fact that the Swedish army was promised supplies by an
undependable ally that did not deliver.
> > He started the battle against a
> > much superior force with little usable gunpowder. And despite all
> > these deficiencies and with tired and hungry and sick men devoid of
> > ammunition he launched an attack against Russian redoubts even when
> > the Russians had a huge artillery superiority.
>
> Business as usual for Charles.
> He usually attacked superior forces and got away with it.
> The enemies were btw not always russian.
>
> Anyway was Poltava a supply depot, something Charles badly needed
> if he wanted the continued existence of the his army.
Or he could have made a strategic withdrawal to live and fight another
day.
> > What made Poltava
> > remotely a fight was the Russians were just too cautious in finalizing
> > their victory. A more confident Russian general would have finished
> > the Swedes in half the time. Peter was just too lucky to have an
> > opponent who provided him with such an easy victory. Not many
> > generals are that lucky.
>
> I think you pretty much can count on an attack on filled depot
> in the middle of a russian winter from an army running on the last
> scraps of supplies.
What middle of russian winter is this? Poltava was fought in July!!
> > Charles XII had many avenues to achieve victory in the Great Northern
> > War. Instead of leaving Russia alone for many years to recoup from
> > the disaster at Narva, he could have pressed the issue and forced its
> > exit from the war.
>
> Which would mean that Peter undisturbed could prepare for phase two
> of the war. Which was exactly what Denmark and Saxony did.
> Charles stubborn as he were was not going to yield at the negotiating table,
> and
> the alliance against Sweden knew that Sweden sure as hell would
> lose a war of attrition.
Well, it is difficult to enter the mind of people that long ago. My
feeling is that Sweden was much better placed to fight a long war. If
it maintained the control of the Baltic, it would have been able to
flank Peter anywhere along, provisioned its fortresses and maintain
its alliances. Prudence wins wars.
> >In 1709, he could have retreated from the Ukraine
> > in good order in the spring when supplies failed to materialize and
> > disease seriously diminished his army.
>
> This would win the war how?
The war was going on for years at that time. Placed in a very
difficult position, many commanders (and many great ones), re-deploy
their troops to fight a battle at the time and place of their
choosing. Charles XII was not in a position to win the war even if he
had managed to scrape a victory at Poltava. He had neither the troops
nor the capability to hold ground or exploit a victory. He was just a
hot-headed young man with too much confidence in his star.
> > And after Poltava, he could
> > have gone back to Sweden instead of spending time in Constantinople
> > trying to convince the Ottomans to attack the Russians. In his
> > absence, Peter managed to consolidate his gains.
> > What really detoothed Sweden was the fact that Peter managed to defeat
> > the Swedish navy repeatedly with the use of galleys. In 1720, the
> > Russian Navy defeated the Swedish navy in the battle of Granhamnsholm
>
> They defeated a meagre swedish squadron of 1 sol and 4 frigates.
> Hardly a significant battle
Well, many texts assign it a much greater importance. But as you
fully accept, what turned the course of the war was the loss of the
Baltic, irrespective if this was a naval battle or the entry of
Denmark in the war. The point is that the Swedish navy became
inconsequential and the Russian fleet raided virtually unopposed the
coastline of Sweden. Sweden then had run out of options
James Beck
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:51:45 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>> In soc.history.medieval VtSkier <vts...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>J Antero wrote:
>>>> from a GQ article....
>>>> ��This is because there are boys and girls among us who have never overcome
>>>> the Randian infection. The Galt speech continues to ring in their ears for
>>>> years like a maddening tinnitus, turning each of them into what next year��s
>>>> Physicians�� Desk Reference will (undoubtedly) term an Ayn Rand Asshole
>>>> (ARA). They constitute a relatively small percentage of Rand readers, these
>>>> ARAs. But they make their reading count. Thanks to them, the Rand Experience
>>>> is no longer limited to those who have read the books. It��s metastasized.
>>>> You, me, all of us, we��re living it. Because it��s the ARA Army of
>>>> antigovernment-antiregulation puritans who have spent the past three decades
>>>> gleefully pulling the cooling rods out of the American economy. For a while,
>>>> it got very big and very hot. Then it popped. And now the rest of us have to
>>>> spend the next decade scaling the slippery slopes of the huge suppurative
>>>> crater that was left behind.
>>>>
>>>> Feeling fisted by the Invisible Hand of the Market lo these past fifteen
>>>> months? Lost a job lately? Or half the value of your 401(k)? Or a home? All
>>>> three? Been wondering whence the too-long-ascendant political and economic
>>>> ideas and forces behind Greenspanism, John Thainism, blind Wall Street
>>>> plunder, bankruptcy, credit-default swaps, Bernie Madoff, and the ensuing
>>>> Cannibalism in the Streets? Then you, sir, need to give thanks to Ayn Rand
>>>> Assholes everywhere�Xas well as the steely loins from which they sprang.��
>>>>
>>
>>>Hmmm, interesting article. I've just been reading the
>>>life and times of Nicola Tesla. It almost seems to me
>>>that if you change a few names, to Morgan, Astor, and
>>>the like you have a similar situation almost exactly
>>>one hundred years ago. It was following those times,
>>>and the Great Depression, that governments started to
>>>tighten up on financial free-for-alls. Then beginning
>>>with Reagan, the cords loosened again to get what we
>>>have now.
>>
>> Nobody reads Adam Smith any more.
>
>Few reads him today because he is so difficult to read.
>
>> *HE* was of the opinions
>> that pure capitolism was OK for butchers and bakers, but that
>> any nation that did not regulate its bankers was asking for
>> big trouble.
>
>I do not remember that.
>
>The problem Adam Smith saw was when merchants (or bankers) could manipulate
>the political system to their own advantage.
>
>>
>> Smith knew about excessive greed.
>
>Smith saw this as a virtue.
Not really, though certain people have misused parts of what he said
about selfishness and the Invisible Hand to paint that picture. His
central view of the ethical basis for free market systems was closer
to this:
"Justice is the main pillar that supports the whole building.
If justice is removed, the great fabric of human society which seems
to have been under the darling care of Nature must in a moment crumble
into atoms�.Men, though naturally sympathetic, feel so little for
others with whom they have no particular connection in comparison to
what they feel for themselves. The misery of one who is merely their
fellow creature is of so little importance to them in comparison to
even a small convenience of their own. They have it so much in their
power to hurt him and may have so many temptations to do so that if
the principle of justice did not stand up within them in his defense
and overawe them into a respect for his innocence, they would like
wild beasts be ready to fly upon him at all times. Under such
circumstances a man would enter an assembly of others as he enters a
den of lions."
Hence the need for government to defend institutional equality. Even
in Smith's day, unbridled greed was known to destroy markets and the
dangers of unregulated fractional reserve banking have been known
since the Medieval period, the 13th century at the latest. Likewise,
some of the dangers of interest-taking have been known much longer;
Biblical times and perhaps earlier in Antiquity.
Even the "Virtue of Selfishness" is twisted perhaps 90-180 degrees
from Smith's original. While the butcher, the brewer and the baker may
be a more reliable source of the ingredients for your dinner, even
Smith knew that your own interest in getting them wasn't sufficient.
Instead, for one to prevail, it is necessary to "... interest their
self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own
advantage to do for him what he requires of them." (Wealth Of Nations,
I.ii.2: pp 26-27)
The real source of the notion that "Private vice is public virtue" is
Bernard Mandeville (1732). Smith described that view as "licentiuous"
and flatly stated Mandeville's philosophy that greed is good was wrong
in both practice and reasoning.
Smith was also a proponent of public goods including national defense,
universal education, public works (like roads and bridges), the
enforcement of legal rights including property rights and contracts,
and the punishment of crime. That included times when people acted on
their short term interests to the detriment of others, as in cases of
robbery, fraud, and so on. Personally, I think Adam Smith would have
been appalled at some of the uses his words have been put to, but he'd
probably chuckle and say "It serves you right."
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> How can you be so sure
By proving a positive, as I already pointed out.
JTEM
SolomonW
I suspect that you have not read Adam Smith either. Few do as he is
extremely complex.
This is not an ethical position on free market as you state but a
description of how he saw people behave.
>
> Hence the need for government to defend institutional equality. Even
> in Smith's day, unbridled greed was known to destroy markets and the
> dangers of unregulated fractional reserve banking have been known
> since the Medieval period, the 13th century at the latest. Likewise,
> some of the dangers of interest-taking have been known much longer;
> Biblical times and perhaps earlier in Antiquity.
This Adam Smith never said, I think you did.
>
> Even the "Virtue of Selfishness" is twisted perhaps 90-180 degrees
> from Smith's original. While the butcher, the brewer and the baker may
> be a more reliable source of the ingredients for your dinner, even
> Smith knew that your own interest in getting them wasn't sufficient.
> Instead, for one to prevail, it is necessary to "... interest their
> self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own
> advantage to do for him what he requires of them." (Wealth Of Nations,
> I.ii.2: pp 26-27)
He actually goes further in his quote, as you can see he is not talking of
the system but individual behavior.
"Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is
in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more
likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and
show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires
of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do
this. Give me what I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the
meaning of every such offer; and it is the manner that we obtain from one
another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need
of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker
that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We
address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love."
>
> The real source of the notion that "Private vice is public virtue" is
> Bernard Mandeville (1732). Smith described that view as "licentiuous"
> and flatly stated Mandeville's philosophy that greed is good was wrong
> in both practice and reasoning.
Really here is another quote by Adam Smith.
"every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the
society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to
promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By
preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends
only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as
its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and
he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote
an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for
the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he
frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he
really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those
who affected to trade for the public good."
>
> Smith was also a proponent of public goods including national defense,
> universal education, public works (like roads and bridges), the
> enforcement of legal rights including property rights and contracts,
> and the punishment of crime. That included times when people acted on
> their short term interests to the detriment of others, as in cases of
> robbery, fraud, and so on.
Indeed.
> Personally, I think Adam Smith would have
> been appalled at some of the uses his words have been put to, but he'd
> probably chuckle and say "It serves you right."
Every prophet words are often misused by others you are example of someone
misusing Adam Smith's words.
Tiglath
Which positive? Don't elude.
Again
How can you prove the statement you keep making"
"You cannot prove a negative"?
Answer intelligibly or admit you cannot.
Tiglath
Reality says that in Euclidean geometry the sums of the angles of a
triangle is not 2 degrees. And since 180 !=2 the negative is
proven.
Same for 180 != 3.
And so on.
As many negatives proven as there are numbers...
Rejoice, you have no choice.
Tiglath
----------------------------------------------------------
See: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/0ce06283b19276af
---------------------------------------------
(Some) CONTRARY EVIDENCE
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_%281700%29
5. http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/99adf8666f08e4ff
Not to mention that the 'im' in 'impossibility' makes the sentence
negative,
and self-referenced. That is, if you cannot prove a negative how
can one
anyone be sure that one can NOT prove a negative? It's a
paradox.
James Beck
wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:19:07 -0500, James Beck wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:37:34 +1100, SolomonW <Solo...@nospamMail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:51:45 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>
>>>> In soc.history.medieval VtSkier <vts...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>J Antero wrote:
[snip]
>> Personally, I think Adam Smith would have
>> been appalled at some of the uses his words have been put to, but he'd
>> probably chuckle and say "It serves you right."
>
>Every prophet words are often misused by others you are example of someone
>misusing Adam Smith's words.
Perhaps, but it is clear that you read very little and understood that
bit that you read out of context. The inquiry on the wealth of
nations is just one part of a larger work that Adam Smith planned, but
failed to complete. Skipping the context may have been an omission of
your own or an oversight on the part of your teachers, though it may
also have been deliberate on their part. Among other things, the
totality of his work doesn't serve the political agenda of the group
that hijacked the bits of it that they liked.
Keeping in mind that Smith was a very religious man with a strict
sense of propriety, he also says in the Theory of Moral Sentiments
(also the source of the earlier quote on 'Justice' ( his central
pillar of human polity): "Man is considered as a moral [being]
because he is regarded as an accountable being. But an accountable
being, as the word expresses, is a being that must give an account of
its actions to some other, and that must consequently regulate them
according to the good liking of this other. Man is accountable to God
and his fellow creatures." TMS, 2nd ed, p. 203.
Further: "... : the violation of justice is injury : it does real and
positive hurt to some particular persons, from motives which naturally
are disapproved of. It is therefore the proper object of resentment,
and of punishment, which is the natural consequence of resentment. As
mankind go along with, and approve of, the violence that is done to
avenge the hurt caused by the injustice, so they much more go along
with, and approve of, that which is done to prevent and beat off the
injury, and to restrain the offender from hurting his neighbors." TMS,
2nd ed, p. 134.
One of the things you might not have noticed as you studied basic
microecon is that the notion of "pure competition" as it is presented
is anything but pure. In the natural sense, pure competition is the
law of the jungle. In economics and in the writings of Adam Smith,
pure competition presupposes civilization, accountability, coercion
and punishment. "Free market" is thus an oxymoron. He would say that
ideally, markets are self-regulating because ideally, their
participants are self-regulating. Whenever that is not true, they are
accountable to the rest of us, and their foibles are subject to
external regulation, coercion and punishment as suits our "good
liking." Life was hard and cheap in those days. The common punishments
prescribed to avenge 'hurts' were correspondingly brutal. Smith was an
expert in jurisprudence and anything but naive. He's not talking about
a country-club prison.
Adam Smith isn't passed over because he's 'complex.' He's very simple,
direct and easy to understand. The math used to explicate his every
economic idea is far weightier for most students than a bit of
philosophical verbiage. Against that backdrop his original work has
become less relevant and some of it, like the invisible hand, is
provably incorrect (see for example the writings of Kenneth Arrow). In
addition, while many of the wealthy families and businesses that endow
universities love the "Free" parts of Adam Smith, they're much less
keen on his pious rectitude and his insistence on ideas like justice,
responsibility, regulation, coercion and punishment. Regardless, the
fastest way to kill off Adam Smith is to continue to portray him as
the sort of fool that believes that self-interest is somehow
inherently benign despite abundant evidence to the contrary.
Paul J Gans
>[snip]
Thank you for that. It is extremely well put.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
JTEM
Tiglath
Poofy John thinks he can win a blinking contest with a man with no
eyelids.
James Beck
You're welcome. He ought to apologize to you, but I don't think he
will. Under the present circumstances, there is something deeply
offensive about flippant, free-market cheerleading.
By the way, as in our earlier discussion, the yuan is still pegged too
low (so... we import from China and China buys assets here). That
combined with the policy the Bush administration committed us to,
i.e., reflating the equity markets to jumpstart the economy, sets the
stage for the next bubble. It could be breathtaking.
I will be thoroughly annoyed if the world ends in 2012... ;>)).
SolomonW
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:38:05 +1100, SolomonW <Solo...@nospamMail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:19:07 -0500, James Beck wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:37:34 +1100, SolomonW <Solo...@nospamMail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:51:45 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In soc.history.medieval VtSkier <vts...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>J Antero wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Personally, I think Adam Smith would have
>>> been appalled at some of the uses his words have been put to, but he'd
>>> probably chuckle and say "It serves you right."
>>
>>Every prophet words are often misused by others you are example of someone
>>misusing Adam Smith's words.
>
> Perhaps, but it is clear that you read very little and understood that
> bit that you read out of context. The inquiry on the wealth of
> nations is just one part of a larger work that Adam Smith planned, but
> failed to complete. Skipping the context may have been an omission of
> your own or an oversight on the part of your teachers, though it may
> also have been deliberate on their part. Among other things, the
> totality of his work doesn't serve the political agenda of the group
> that hijacked the bits of it that they liked.
>
Irrelevant.
People tend to be judged by their major books and not what they planned,
but failed to complete.
> Keeping in mind that Smith was a very religious man with a strict
> sense of propriety, he also says in the Theory of Moral Sentiments
> (also the source of the earlier quote on 'Justice' ( his central
> pillar of human polity): "Man is considered as a moral [being]
> because he is regarded as an accountable being. But an accountable
> being, as the word expresses, is a being that must give an account of
> its actions to some other, and that must consequently regulate them
> according to the good liking of this other. Man is accountable to God
> and his fellow creatures." TMS, 2nd ed, p. 203.
(a)
And this disagrees with what I said how?
>
> Further: "... : the violation of justice is injury : it does real and
> positive hurt to some particular persons, from motives which naturally
> are disapproved of. It is therefore the proper object of resentment,
> and of punishment, which is the natural consequence of resentment. As
> mankind go along with, and approve of, the violence that is done to
> avenge the hurt caused by the injustice, so they much more go along
> with, and approve of, that which is done to prevent and beat off the
> injury, and to restrain the offender from hurting his neighbors." TMS,
> 2nd ed, p. 134.
>
And this disagrees with what I said how?
> One of the things you might not have noticed as you studied basic
> microecon is that the notion of "pure competition" as it is presented
> is anything but pure. In the natural sense, pure competition is the
> law of the jungle. In economics and in the writings of Adam Smith,
> pure competition presupposes civilization, accountability, coercion
> and punishment. "Free market" is thus an oxymoron. He would say that
> ideally, markets are self-regulating because ideally, their
> participants are self-regulating.
Wrong, he would not. Clearly you have not read his works. He stated that
merchants have a desire to change the system so it will not be ideal.
What it is important is for the government to make sure the system is
ideal.
> Whenever that is not true, they are
> accountable to the rest of us, and their foibles are subject to
> external regulation, coercion and punishment as suits our "good
> liking." Life was hard and cheap in those days. The common punishments
> prescribed to avenge 'hurts' were correspondingly brutal.
And this disagrees with what I said how?
> Smith was an
> expert in jurisprudence and anything but naive. He's not talking about
> a country-club prison.
>
Clearly
> Adam Smith isn't passed over because he's 'complex.' He's very simple,
> direct and easy to understand.
Crap!!!!! He is very hard to read. I have seen undergraduates in Uni give
up reading him because of the difficulty in reading him.
> The math used to explicate his every
> economic idea is far weightier for most students than a bit of
> philosophical verbiage. Against that backdrop his original work has
> become less relevant and some of it, like the invisible hand, is
> provably incorrect (see for example the writings of Kenneth Arrow). In
> addition, while many of the wealthy families and businesses that endow
> universities love the "Free" parts of Adam Smith, they're much less
> keen on his pious rectitude and his insistence on ideas like justice,
> responsibility, regulation, coercion and punishment. Regardless, the
> fastest way to kill off Adam Smith is to continue to portray him as
> the sort of fool that believes that self-interest is somehow
> inherently benign despite abundant evidence to the contrary.
They are like you they pick and choose what he wrote. At least some of them
read what he wrote, clearly you have not.
SolomonW
> You're welcome. He ought to apologize to you, but I don't think he
> will.
????
> Under the present circumstances, there is something deeply
> offensive about flippant, free-market cheerleading.
How am I doing this and how do you get from my writings that I am flippant,
free-market cheerleading.
PS Clearly you have never read Adam Smith's works and never studied him.
James Beck
wrote:
Into the killfile you go, halfwit.
SolomonW
Actually there was an interesting survey on this subject on people like
this who pretend to read books they have never read.
I cannot find the survey but the results were somewhat similar to this one
that was done in England.
http://www.24dash.com/news/Education/2007-01-24-British-adults-lie-about-reading-high-brow-books
A third of British adults have lied about reading a 'high-brow' book to
appear more intelligent, a new survey revealed yesterday.
A cunning 33 percent of adults claim to have read challenging literature to
appear well-read, when in fact they haven't a clue what the book is about.
But 40 percent admit they lied about reading certain books just so they
could join in with conversation.
One in ten men said they would fib about reading a certain book to impress
the opposite sex, according to the poll of over 4000 bookworms conducted by
the Museums, Libraries and Archive Council (MLA).
Most people expand on their literary repertoire to impress a new date, 15
percent have lied about the books they have read to a new colleague and
five percent have told porkies about their reading habits to their
employer.
The younger generation is out to impress the most, with more than half of
19 to 21 year olds expanding the truth about the books they read.
But they are also most likely to get caught out, with one in ten 19 to 21
year olds tripping up when quizzed about a book they lied about reading.
But the book we all lie about reading is the bestselling Lord of the Rings
by J.R.R Tolkien.
The epic trilogy took 11 years to complete and 14 percent of those who
started the book with good intentions never managed to finish it.
John Dolan, Head of Library Policy at the Museums, Libraries and Archives
Council, said, "It's fascinating to see that so many people are trying to
impress others with the books they haven't actually read."
"Talking about books and literature is an obvious conversation starter and
certain authors and titles often get strangers chatting."
"Some titles do have a certain kudos and it's often nice to drop into
conversation our knowledge of well-known writers and books."
"For those wanting to expand their knowledge, libraries offer lots of
different ways to engage with books. You can listen to the audio book or
explore titles and authors online. Libraries make it easy to read those
books you've always meant to get around to reading."
One in twenty men who took part in the poll said they would lie about
reading Harry Potter to give the illusion they're in touch with the latest
trends.
And almost half of respondents said that reading ic titles like Jane Eyre
or Pride and Prejudice makes you appear more intelligent.
Top Ten Books we lie about reading:
1. The Lord of the Rings - J.R.R Tolkien
2. War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy
3. Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
4. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus - John Gray
5. 1984 - George Orwell
6. Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone - J.K Rowling
7. Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
8. Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte
9. The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown
10.Diary of Anne Frank - Anne Frank
James Beck
> In soc.history.medieval JamesBeck<jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:38:05 +1100, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com>
> >wrote:
> >>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:19:07 -0500, JamesBeckwrote:
>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:51:45 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> >>>>>>J Antero wrote:
> >[snip]
> >>> been appalled at some of the uses his words have been put to, but he'd
> >>> probably chuckle and say "It serves you right."
>
> >>Every prophet words are often misused by others you are example of someone
> >>misusingAdamSmith'swords.
> >Perhaps, but it is clear that you read very little and understood that
> >bit that you read out of context. The inquiry on the wealth of
> >failed to complete. Skipping the context may have been an omission of
> >your own or an oversight on the part of your teachers, though it may
> >also have been deliberate on their part. Among other things, the
> >totality of his work doesn't serve the political agenda of the group
> >that hijacked the bits of it that they liked.
> >expert in jurisprudence and anything but naive. He's not talking about
> >a country-club prison.
> >direct and easy to understand. The math used to explicate his every
> >economic idea is far weightier for most students than a bit of
> >philosophical verbiage. Against that backdrop his original work has
> >become less relevant and some of it, like the invisible hand, is
> >provably incorrect (see for example the writings of Kenneth Arrow). In
> >addition, while many of the wealthy families and businesses that endow
> >keen on his pious rectitude and his insistence on ideas like justice,
> >responsibility, regulation, coercion and punishment. Regardless, the
> >the sort of fool that believes that self-interest is somehow
> >inherently benign despite abundant evidence to the contrary.
>
> Thank you for that. It is extremely well put.
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pretty much as expected. I have limited tolerance for poor scholarship
these days. I may have accidentally turned into my father. It must be
difficult to discover that, after having carefully studied the middle
of a book and even learned to articulate it reasonably well, anyone
who read the beginning thinks you a fool. Likewise, the belief that a
strict Scottish Christian of the 18th century who titles a subchapter
"Of the influence and authority of the general rules of morality, and
that they are justly regarded as the laws of the Diety," would
consider one of the seven deadly sins a virtue is almost mind-
bogglingly inane. Nevertheless, under the prevailing circumstances any
self-proclaimed adherent of Adam Smith who doesn't defend his central
tenet, Justice, deserves neither the civilization nor the orderly
markets that depend on it. After all, only a fool lets the tail wag
the dog and ultimately, there's no reason to suffer fools gladly.
Good clear thinking on your part. Best.
Renia
>
> Top Ten Books we lie about reading:
>
> 1. The Lord of the Rings - J.R.R Tolkien
> 2. War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy
> 3. Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
> 4. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus - John Gray
> 5. 1984 - George Orwell
> 6. Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone - J.K Rowling
> 7. Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
> 8. Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte
> 9. The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown
> 10.Diary of Anne Frank - Anne Frank
The only ones I haven't read from this list are Men are From Mars... and
Harry Potter (which I have no intention of reading).
VtSkier
> SolomonW wrote:
>
>>
>> Top Ten Books we lie about reading:
>>
>> 1. The Lord of the Rings - J.R.R Tolkien
Read it, twice actually.
>> 2. War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy
Started, never finished.
>> 3. Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
No
>> 4. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus - John Gray
First third.
>> 5. 1984 - George Orwell
Read it, but so long ago, I don't remember much.
>> 6. Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone - J.K Rowling
Read it.
>> 7. Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
No
>> 8. Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte
No
>> 9. The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown
Read it and saw the movie.
>> 10.Diary of Anne Frank - Anne Frank
Excerpts only.
> The only ones I haven't read from this list are Men are From Mars... and
> Harry Potter (which I have no intention of reading).
So somebody out there can probably deduce my
personality traits and taste in books from this.
Weland
> Renia wrote:
>> SolomonW wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Top Ten Books we lie about reading:
>>>
>>> 1. The Lord of the Rings - J.R.R Tolkien
>
> Read it, twice actually.
Wow, hmmm, read it at least 10 times, have taught it 2 or 3 times.....
>
>>> 2. War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy
>
> Started, never finished.
Me too...couldn't make it through.
>
>>> 3. Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
>
> No
Yes, but only because I was forced to for a class.
>>> 4. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus - John Gray
>
> First third.
Nope, not even interested.
>>> 5. 1984 - George Orwell
>
> Read it, but so long ago, I don't remember much.
Same here
>>> 6. Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone - J.K Rowling
>
> Read it.
Yep, a fun children's book. And since this is going to ancient and
medieval groups, Rowling's recasting of ancient and medieval shtuff is
interesting and kinda fun.
>>> 7. Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
>
> No
Yep.
>>> 8. Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte
>
> No
Nope, though I've seen several productions of it.
>>> 9. The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown
>
> Read it and saw the movie.
Read it, did not see the movie even though I'm a Tom Hanks fan
>
>>> 10.Diary of Anne Frank - Anne Frank
>
> Excerpts only.
Had to for a class.
>
>> The only ones I haven't read from this list are Men are From Mars...
>> and Harry Potter (which I have no intention of reading).
>
> So somebody out there can probably deduce my
> personality traits and taste in books from this.
Weirdo.....of course since we've read many of the same...
am...@hotmail.com
> >>> 1. The Lord of the Rings - J.R.R Tolkien
>
> > Read it, twice actually.
>
> Wow, hmmm, read it at least 10 times, have taught it 2 or 3 times.....
Never could get beyond the 3rd page....
>
>
>
> >>> 2. War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy
>
> > Started, never finished.
>
> Me too...couldn't make it through.
You were lucky because (a) you were not FORCED to read it to the end,
(b) you were not (I assume) to write reviews on the various aspects of
this book (part of a curriculum in the Soviet schools) and (c) I
suspect that English translation was better (in the terms of language)
than what passed for Tolstoy's knowledge of the Russian language. :-)
>
>
>
> >>> 3. Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
>
> > No
>
> Yes, but only because I was forced to for a class.
But at least ity is much shorter (never read it but saw it on a shelf)
than "W&P". OTOH, it is nice to know that suffering is not limited to
a single educational system.
>
> >>> 5. 1984 - George Orwell
>
> > Read it, but so long ago, I don't remember much.
>
> Same here
Good book but not my favorite in this genre. To be fair, it has
interesting idea about changing the past (not sure how familiar he was
with the Soviet realities at the time he wrote it).
>
> >>> 7. Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
>
> > No
>
> Yep.
Noooooooooo! (But, as Karel Chapek noticed, "The Pickwick Papers" is
a very good reading when you have a cold)
>
> >>> 8. Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte
>
> > No
>
> Nope, though I've seen several productions of it.
Ditto.
>
> >>> 9. The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown
>
> > Read it and saw the movie.
>
> Read it, did not see the movie even though I'm a Tom Hanks fan
Read it, saw part of the movie. Tom Hanks looks terrible (IMO). Well,
he is NOT playing an idiot in this movie so it should not come as a
big surprise.
>
>
>
> >>> 10.Diary of Anne Frank - Anne Frank
>
> > Excerpts only.
>
> Had to for a class.
Nope: too distressing.
> > So somebody out there can probably deduce my
> > personality traits and taste in books from this.
The list is too limited to make any meaningful conclusions.
William Black
> On Nov 19, 9:47 am, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> 1. The Lord of the Rings - J.R.R Tolkien
>>> Read it, twice actually.
>> Wow, hmmm, read it at least 10 times, have taught it 2 or 3 times.....
>
> Never could get beyond the 3rd page....
It's very dated in style and its politics are pretty ghastly.
It's basic premiss has already been subverted by Terry Pratchett's
novels as well.
Anyone under thirty who tries to read it today probably won't get
through it.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
VtSkier
> On Nov 19, 9:47 am, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> 1. The Lord of the Rings - J.R.R Tolkien
>>> Read it, twice actually.
>> Wow, hmmm, read it at least 10 times, have taught it 2 or 3 times.....
>
> Never could get beyond the 3rd page....
Could be the genre. If one does not like
high fantasy, then one simply does not like
high fantasy and finds it unreadable.
>>
>>
>>>>> 2. War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy
>>> Started, never finished.
>> Me too...couldn't make it through.
>
> You were lucky because (a) you were not FORCED to read it to the end,
> (b) you were not (I assume) to write reviews on the various aspects of
> this book (part of a curriculum in the Soviet schools) and (c) I
> suspect that English translation was better (in the terms of language)
> than what passed for Tolstoy's knowledge of the Russian language. :-)
I find your comment interesting. I would have
thought that the original Russian would have
been far better than an English translation.
What are you saying about Tolstoy?
>>
>>
>>>>> 3. Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
>>> No
>> Yes, but only because I was forced to for a class.
>
> But at least ity is much shorter (never read it but saw it on a shelf)
> than "W&P". OTOH, it is nice to know that suffering is not limited to
> a single educational system.
>
>
>>>>> 5. 1984 - George Orwell
>>> Read it, but so long ago, I don't remember much.
>> Same here
>
> Good book but not my favorite in this genre. To be fair, it has
> interesting idea about changing the past (not sure how familiar he was
> with the Soviet realities at the time he wrote it).
It was, IIRC, an anti-socialist, anti-Soviet
work. Again, what are you saying? I'd like to
hear. It appears that you have a point of
view very different from most of us here.
>
>>>>> 7. Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
>>> No
>> Yep.
>
> Noooooooooo! (But, as Karel Chapek noticed, "The Pickwick Papers" is
> a very good reading when you have a cold)
I've read very little of Dickens. 'Christmas Carol'
and 'Tale of Two Cities' to name them. I don't really
care for his style and the social commentary is a
reflection of the times for sure, but a little empty
these days.
>>>>> 8. Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte
>>> No
>> Nope, though I've seen several productions of it.
>
> Ditto.
>
>>>>> 9. The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown
>>> Read it and saw the movie.
>> Read it, did not see the movie even though I'm a Tom Hanks fan
>
> Read it, saw part of the movie. Tom Hanks looks terrible (IMO). Well,
> he is NOT playing an idiot in this movie so it should not come as a
> big surprise.
Hey, we all get older.
>>
>>
>>>>> 10.Diary of Anne Frank - Anne Frank
>>> Excerpts only.
>> Had to for a class.
>
> Nope: too distressing.
>
>>> So somebody out there can probably deduce my
>>> personality traits and taste in books from this.
>
> The list is too limited to make any meaningful conclusions.
Of course it is, but I'm sure someone might try.
VtSkier
> am...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 9:47 am, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> 1. The Lord of the Rings - J.R.R Tolkien
>>>> Read it, twice actually.
>>> Wow, hmmm, read it at least 10 times, have taught it 2 or 3 times.....
>>
>> Never could get beyond the 3rd page....
>
> It's very dated in style and its politics are pretty ghastly.
>
> It's basic premiss has already been subverted by Terry Pratchett's
> novels as well.
>
> Anyone under thirty who tries to read it today probably won't get
> through it.
made it popular enough to make the whole
trilogy into movies... that were VERY
popular?
Renia
People aged over 30.