If Fantasy Got Serious...

[Alie...@gmail.com]

...the protags of the TV series Supernatural, who spend their time hunting and "ganking" the many and varied sorts of Damned, would go after LGBTg etc.

Somehow I don't think that would fly even if it were on Fox instead of der CW.

I don't know, maybe I've been reading too much Quadibloc.


Mark L. Fergerson

[David Johnston]

On 4/13/2015 4:30 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> ...the protags of the TV series Supernatural, who spend their time hunting and "ganking" the many and varied sorts of Damned, would go after LGBTg etc.

Why?

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 8:30:45 AM UTC+10, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> ...the protags of the TV series Supernatural, who spend their time hunting and "ganking" the many and varied sorts of Damned, would go after LGBTg etc.
>
> Somehow I don't think that would fly even if it were on Fox instead of der CW.
>

As a public service announcement could you please post what drugs you were on when you wrote this?

[Kevrob]

I'm going to guess powdered Ritalin with a Red Bull chaser or 27.

Had to go look up "ganking." I wasn't familiar with that term, though I was
exposed to the concept in Stephenson's "REAMDE." I don't play many video
games, and no MMORPGs.

Kevin R

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <7b05c80d-4b56-4995...@googlegroups.com>,

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>Had to go look up "ganking." I wasn't familiar with that term, though I was
>exposed to the concept in Stephenson's "REAMDE." I don't play many video
>games, and no MMORPGs.

Well, MMORPGs are where ganking happens,* and it consists of
fighting other characters, much weaker than your character, and
looting their corpses: particularly if you catch them unawares
when they've just logged in. Some players, whom count me not
among, consider this to be fun.

_____
*But not in the MMOs written by Turbine, in which PvP
(Player-vs.-Player) is always consensual: you have either
to tag your character as being willing to PvP, or else go
voluntary to a specific region where it's allowed.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

None at all (except an overdose of Quadibloc), maybe that was the problem.

Perhaps if I'd used "abominations as defined in the Bible" rather than "Damned" it would have been clearer that LGB... etc. qualified.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Kevrob]

Jews eating shellfish...? Into the Pit with them!!!

Kevin R

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 4:30:45 PM UTC-6, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> ...the protags of the TV series Supernatural, who spend their time hunting and
> "ganking" the many and varied sorts of Damned, would go after LGBTg etc.

That doesn't make sense. If they hunt those who are "Damned" for acts injurious o
others, then they're sympathetic heroes. If they instead go after people who are
merely different - who merely violate the tenets of their particular religion -
then they're unsympathetic bigots. Like ISIS.

So that's not "fantasy getting serious".

However, you're _close_. Since the protagonists are hunting beings who they
refer to as the "damned", that assumes the _existence_ of Hell, and therefore
God, and the whole rest of the Judeo-Christian theogony.

If so, certainly the issue of how we got the idea that God considers
homosexuality sinful, and on a par with rights-violating criminal acts, should
certainly be _addressed_.

Of course, if going forth and hunting down people for being homosexual would
be... controversial... directly including as a plot point which parts of the
Bible had been... tampered with (or were putting words in God's mouth)... would
also be perhaps even *more* controversial.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

On 4/15/2015 1:06 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 4:30:45 PM UTC-6, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>> ...the protags of the TV series Supernatural, who spend their time hunting and
>> "ganking" the many and varied sorts of Damned, would go after LGBTg etc.
>
> That doesn't make sense. If they hunt those who are "Damned" for acts injurious o
> others, then they're sympathetic heroes. If they instead go after people who are
> merely different - who merely violate the tenets of their particular religion -
> then they're unsympathetic bigots. Like ISIS.
>
> So that's not "fantasy getting serious".
>
> However, you're _close_. Since the protagonists are hunting beings who they
> refer to as the "damned", that assumes the _existence_ of Hell, and therefore
> God, and the whole rest of the Judeo-Christian theogony.

Since they've spend whole seasons fighting angels, no.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 12:06:13 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 4:30:45 PM UTC-6, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > ...the protags of the TV series Supernatural, who spend their time hunting
> > and "ganking" the many and varied sorts of Damned, would go after LGBTg etc.
>
> That doesn't make sense.

Sigh. Long after I posted I realized "abominations" better expresses what I meant than "damned" does.

> If they hunt those who are "Damned" for acts
> injurious o others, then they're sympathetic heroes. If they instead go after
> people who are merely different - who merely violate the tenets of their
> particular religion - then they're unsympathetic bigots. Like ISIS.

The origin and imperative of "the tenets of their particular religion" is the point.

> So that's not "fantasy getting serious".
>
> However, you're _close_. Since the protagonists are hunting beings who they
> refer to as the "damned", that assumes the _existence_ of Hell, and therefore
> God, and the whole rest of the Judeo-Christian theogony.

(I'll read theogony as shorthand for mythical cosmogony)

Yep, *but* not quite the J-X theogony we're familiar in the RW. Example- an archangel (occupying a human Vessel) is told that something he's doing is not per the bible, and he smirkingly responds that the bible "gets so much wrong".

Many episodes, indeed whole story arcs, are based on that premise; some of the tropes and their interactions are altered, but recognizable.

> If so, certainly the issue of how we got the idea that God considers
> homosexuality sinful, and on a par with rights-violating criminal acts,

No, *more* sinful that R-VCAs.

> should certainly be _addressed_.

Have you ever read a RW bible? Just one example:

Lev. 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."

The NT has similar in Paul's letters.

This isn't apocrypha or commentary, this is the Word Of Gawd Hisself. Ergo:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Yeah, isolated extremists. Actually, not:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-raushenbush/thank-you-westboro-baptist-church_b_2396991.html

> Of course, if going forth and hunting down people for being homosexual would
> be... controversial... directly including as a plot point which parts of the
> Bible had been... tampered with (or were putting words in God's mouth)...
> would also be perhaps even *more* controversial.

The show's main viewership doesn't seem to be concerned with that so much as how often the Winchester boys take off their shirts.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 3:00:55 PM UTC-6, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> Have you ever read a RW bible? Just one example:
>
> Lev. 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
>
> The NT has similar in Paul's letters.
>
> This isn't apocrypha or commentary, this is the Word Of Gawd Hisself.

Well, some people seem to claim thst while this was really part of the "old
covenant", Paul in the New Testament wasn't inspired and lead the Christian
church away from the True Teachings of Jesus.

Endorsing some such theory, rather than have the protagonists hunt down
homosexuals, would be a more reasonable way to "get serious", but it would
still be controversial - that was my point.

John Savard

[hamis...@gmail.com]

I think you'll find that they go against quite a few of the biblical ethics themselves.
They aren't going after people because they sin, they go after people and things that are a huge danger to people.

[Robert Carnegie]

I haven't followed the show. Is there a specific term used?

And are its premises as ridiculous and possibly offensive
as that?

> Jews eating shellfish...? Into the Pit with them!!!

People wearing clothing made of more than one fibre!
I'm not sure if polyester and cotton counts, but there's
a lot of that.

Actually, I don't think it's implausible that religiously
minded people will hunt and persecute homosexual men and
women. But it isn't fantastical either.

It also isn't implausible that religion-inspired fiction
will be published - and would be fantastical - that
represents any and all homosexual characters as wicked
in all other ways and needing to be killed.

Published in the U.S. or elsewhere, and inspired by
Christianity or by other religions.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 3, 2015 at 10:25:11 PM UTC+10, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 23:11:51 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 3:09:53 PM UTC-4, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 4:44:14 AM UTC-7, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 8:30:45 AM UTC+10, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > > ...the protags of the TV series Supernatural, who spend their time hunting
> > > > > and "ganking" the many and varied sorts of Damned, would go after LGBTg etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Somehow I don't think that would fly even if it were on Fox instead of der
> > > > > CW.
> > > > >
> > > > As a public service announcement could you please post what drugs you were on
> > > > when you wrote this?
> > >
> > > None at all (except an overdose of Quadibloc), maybe that was the problem.
> > >
> > > Perhaps if I'd used "abominations as defined in the Bible" rather
> > > than "Damned" it would have been clearer that LGB... etc. qualified.
>
> I haven't followed the show. Is there a specific term used?

I haven't watched the last few seasons.
For the first few seasons they were basically normally going up against ghosts and other monsters.
There were demons but little evidence that it was based on the anything related to the bible until season 4 when angels started showing up.

>
> And are its premises as ridiculous and possibly offensive
> as that?

Nope.

[Stephen Allcroft]

Of course if you eat Cheeseburgers you are an abomination, and the bacon double cheeseburger...

[pete...@gmail.com]

Reminds me of a conversation I once had with a secular Jewish friend of mine,
in which we tried to figure out how many mitzvot he could break in one act.

What we came up with was: On the Sabbath, during Passover, drive to Burger
King, buy and consume a Bacon Cheesburger bought for cash from the drive-thru.

1. No leaven during Passover
2. No mixing meat and milk
3. No pork
4. No increasing a fire on the Sabbath (BK burgers are 'flame broiled')
4a. Starting the car also starts a fire.
5. No carrying outside an eruv (you carried the burger away from the store).
6. No handling money on the Sabbath.

pt

[Greg Goss]

pete...@gmail.com wrote:

>Reminds me of a conversation I once had with a secular Jewish friend of mine,
>in which we tried to figure out how many mitzvot he could break in one act.
>
>What we came up with was: On the Sabbath, during Passover, drive to Burger
>King, buy and consume a Bacon Cheesburger bought for cash from the drive-thru.

>4. No increasing a fire on the Sabbath (BK burgers are 'flame broiled')
>4a. Starting the car also starts a fire.

No "increasing" a fire? The flame broiler runs the whole day
regardless of whether or not you're at the order window. You still
keep #4 for the car, though.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[pete...@gmail.com]

Of course, there's also

7. Eating meat improperly slaughtered.

pt

[pete...@gmail.com]

...and
8. Travelling more than 1000 yards on the Sabbath.

(that conversation was a long time ago, and bits of it are coming back)

pt

[Kevrob]

BK? Not worth it. Now, a roadside stand with lobster rolls or fried clams, and chili cheese fries...

Kevin R

[Kevrob]

Almost forgot to top the CC fries w/bacon!

Kevin R

[William Vetter]

You forgot storing milk & meat in the same refrigerator.

[Cryptoengineer]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:7cd4ae53-27e3-4a51...@googlegroups.com:

Shellfish is just as treif as pork, but I think you may lose breaking
the 'no leaven during Passover' mitzvoh with clams - I don't know that
the batter counts as risen bread. Also, it isn't like you could involve
a schecter (sp?) for clams, even if they were otherwise OK.

pt

[Greg Goss]

William Vetter <mdha...@gmail.com> wrote:

>pete...@gmail.com wrote:

>> 1. No leaven during Passover
>> 2. No mixing meat and milk
>> 3. No pork
>> 4. No increasing a fire on the Sabbath (BK burgers are 'flame broiled')
>> 4a. Starting the car also starts a fire.
>> 5. No carrying outside an eruv (you carried the burger away from the store).
>> 6. No handling money on the Sabbath.
>>
>You forgot storing milk & meat in the same refrigerator.

Isn't that just a precaution towards #2?

[William Vetter]

Hassidim can't eat anything from a kitchen where there aren't 2
separate refrigerators, I think.

[Greg Goss]

Yeah, because of #2 and the risk of contamination.

[pete...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 1:59:19 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
> William Vetter <mdha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Greg Goss wrote:
> >> William Vetter <mdha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>> 1. No leaven during Passover
> >>>> 2. No mixing meat and milk
> >>>> 3. No pork
> >>>> 4. No increasing a fire on the Sabbath (BK burgers are 'flame broiled')
> >>>> 4a. Starting the car also starts a fire.
> >>>> 5. No carrying outside an eruv (you carried the burger away from the
> >>>> store). 6. No handling money on the Sabbath.
> >>>>
> >>> You forgot storing milk & meat in the same refrigerator.
> >>
> >> Isn't that just a precaution towards #2?
> >
> >Hassidim can't eat anything from a kitchen where there aren't 2
> >separate refrigerators, I think.
>
> Yeah, because of #2 and the risk of contamination.

Orthodox Jewish homes will often have what amount to duplicate kitchen/eating
setups, to the extent they can afford it: Flatware, crockery,
stove/refrigerator/freezer/dishwasher/sinks, since it's a lot easier to
use dedicated setups than to ritually cleanse items when they change use.
Some will also have Passover-dedicated items.

There's an old joke about a family making aliyah, and moving to Israel.
They're importing their household goods, which can come in duty-free.

The custom agent looks at the manifest:

CA: "I see you're declaring four refrigerators as household goods. Care
to explain?"

Immigrant: "Well, ones for meat, the other for milk"

CA: "OK, fine"

Immigrant: "The third is for Passover-only, so my darling wife doesn't
have to empty the others to get rid of hametz. We just lock them up,
and temporarily sell them to a goy."

CA: "Very observant! What's the fourth for?"

Immigrant: "Oh, that's where we keep treif."

pt

[William Vetter]

pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 1:59:19 AM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
>> William Vetter <mdha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Greg Goss wrote:
>>>> William Vetter <mdha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 1. No leaven during Passover
>>>>>> 2. No mixing meat and milk
>>>>>> 3. No pork
>>>>>> 4. No increasing a fire on the Sabbath (BK burgers are 'flame broiled')
>>>>>> 4a. Starting the car also starts a fire.
>>>>>> 5. No carrying outside an eruv (you carried the burger away from the
>>>>>> store). 6. No handling money on the Sabbath.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You forgot storing milk & meat in the same refrigerator.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that just a precaution towards #2?
>>>
>>> Hassidim can't eat anything from a kitchen where there aren't 2
>>> separate refrigerators, I think.
>>
>> Yeah, because of #2 and the risk of contamination.
>
> Orthodox Jewish homes will often have what amount to duplicate kitchen/eating
> setups, to the extent they can afford it: Flatware,

You could eat the bacon and the cheese with the same spork.

[Kevrob]

OK, get clam chowder, then. Has to be New England style,* so you
get the dairy base. Most recipes I've seen put at least a bit of bacon.

http://allrecipes.com/recipe/new-england-clam-chowder-i/

Besides, the lobster roll is traditionally
served on a frankfurter bun. That's certainly leavened bread.

Kevin R

[pete...@gmail.com]

Add in some crackers for the leaven. But, it remains the case that
shellfish are shucked, not schected, so you lose the failure to perform
the required ritual slaughter.

I'm also unclear if the meat/milk prohibition applies to fish. The categories
used by those who made up these rules aren't the same as modern scientific
ones (forex: whales count as 'fish' in kashrut, iirc).

> Besides, the lobster roll is traditionally
> served on a frankfurter bun. That's certainly leavened bread.

Yup, but no cheese in contact with the meat, and again, its not clear if
shellfish flesh counts as 'meat' in this context,

Bacon cheeseburger on a sesame bun hits all the buttons, without dispute;
milk/meat, pork, leaven, non-ritual slaughter.

> Kevin R

[Kevrob]

Would "oyster crackers" suffice? Using saltines is too close to matzoh.

> I'm also unclear if the meat/milk prohibition applies to fish. The categories
> used by those who made up these rules aren't the same as modern scientific
> ones (forex: whales count as 'fish' in kashrut, iirc).
>
> > Besides, the lobster roll is traditionally
> > served on a frankfurter bun. That's certainly leavened bread.
>
> Yup, but no cheese in contact with the meat, and again, its not clear if
> shellfish flesh counts as 'meat' in this context,
>

In Connecticut, warm lobster swims in melted butter on the roll.
Some places offer the choice of cold lobster in mayo, but I eschew that
version. So, there's your dairy.

> Bacon cheeseburger on a sesame bun hits all the buttons, without dispute;
> milk/meat, pork, leaven, non-ritual slaughter.

Best to get it at a diner. That way it is on a permanent plate,
not in a paper boat or wrapper. No way the dishes at the Greek's
are going to pass the rules of a kosher kitchen!

Kevin R

[William Vetter]

Fly to NOLA on Passover for some gumbo:

http://www.fabulousfoods.com/articles/948983/creamy-cajun-shrimp-and-sausage-gumbo-recipe

[Robert Carnegie]

Does it count if you wear a polyester-cotton blend shirt
to do that?

Get a family meal with your civil partner? Or, is that
a different level of "no"?

Likewise if you don't wear trousers?

You can probably run a car on animal fat... but this is
kind of a stupid game.

[Cryptoengineer]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:f1df88ea-8200-4745...@googlegroups.com:

Some of those things are probably non-kosher, but my friend
and I were trying to figure out how many rules we could
break in a *single* act - not multitasking, which wearing
mixed fibers as well would be (and it would have to be
a linen/wool mix to be Shatnez in most interpretations;
polyester/cotten is not a problem).

The act we came up with was 'On Sabbath during Passover,
get a Bacon Cheeseburger for lunch from the drive in
window at BK'.

pt

[David Goldfarb]

In article <XnsA4A572C286...@216.166.97.131>,

Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Some of those things are probably non-kosher, but my friend
>and I were trying to figure out how many rules we could
>break in a *single* act - not multitasking, which wearing
>mixed fibers as well would be (and it would have to be
>a linen/wool mix to be Shatnez in most interpretations;
>polyester/cotten is not a problem).
>
>The act we came up with was 'On Sabbath during Passover,
>get a Bacon Cheeseburger for lunch from the drive in
>window at BK'.

I seem to recall Alter Reiss coming up with a "maximally sinful
sandwich". He included some more esoteric things like "lettuce
grown during the Jublee year", "a bun that was stolen from an
orphan, who would die without it", and noted that your parents
had told you not to eat the sandwich, and you had also previously
taken an oath not to eat the sandwich. (Or perhaps sandwiches
in general.) Also he had it happening on Yom Kippur, when
you're supposed to be fasting, rather than Passover.

--
David Goldfarb |"I'm sorry officer, but ever since I started
goldf...@gmail.com | wearing the Wonderbra I've been inexplicably
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | drawn around town preventing crimes."
| -- Bizarro

[pete...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-4, David Goldfarb wrote:
> In article <XnsA4A572C286...@216.166.97.131>,
> Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Some of those things are probably non-kosher, but my friend
> >and I were trying to figure out how many rules we could
> >break in a *single* act - not multitasking, which wearing
> >mixed fibers as well would be (and it would have to be
> >a linen/wool mix to be Shatnez in most interpretations;
> >polyester/cotten is not a problem).
> >
> >The act we came up with was 'On Sabbath during Passover,
> >get a Bacon Cheeseburger for lunch from the drive in
> >window at BK'.
>
> I seem to recall Alter Reiss coming up with a "maximally sinful
> sandwich". He included some more esoteric things like "lettuce
> grown during the Jublee year", "a bun that was stolen from an
> orphan, who would die without it", and noted that your parents
> had told you not to eat the sandwich, and you had also previously
> taken an oath not to eat the sandwich. (Or perhaps sandwiches
> in general.) Also he had it happening on Yom Kippur, when
> you're supposed to be fasting, rather than Passover.

Sounds like he was playing the same game :-). Toasted ham & cheese,
I assume.

pt

[David Goldfarb]

In article <a72202df-b510-4e02...@googlegroups.com>,

Oh, more elaborate than that. Two kinds of meat, one from an
unclean animal, one from a clean animal but one that wasn't
slaughtered in the right way, with at least one of them a sacrifice
to a pagan god. Cheese that had been dedicated as an offering
to the temple. That kind of thing.

--
David Goldfarb |From the fortune cookie file:
goldf...@gmail.com |
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |"Sell your ideas -- they are totally acceptable."

[William Vetter]

I think if you request the pickle on it, the pickle won't be Kosher.

[Robert Carnegie]

Here and there there's a restaurant that serves roadkill,
possibly killed by the customer - hopefully by accident.

Somehow <http://www.ahajokes.com/tra39.html> also came
to mind. Category "clean" is I suppose because this version
is worded in a particular way that lessens the implications.

Or the one below, as told at
<http://hystericalmarissa.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/funny.html>

A man was driving along a winding mountain road. Another
car approached him, and as it drove by, a woman leaned
out the window and yelled at him, "Pig!" He shouted back
at her, "Bitch!" Then he turned the corner and hit a pig
in the middle of the road.