William Blake said "Sooner murder an infant in its craddle..."
Dr Zen
<junaf...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Does this line mean "if you want to kill an infant, just do it"?
>
>"June Kim" <junaf...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:8eloe6$gf9$1...@news.nuri.net...
>> Sooner murder an infant in its craddle than nurse unacted
desire.
>>
>> What does this mean? (I read this line from a book, _If You
Want
>> to Write_ by Brenda Ueland)
>>
>> - June
>>
No wonder people think Blake was a bit of a frootloop! It
means 'it would be better to kill an infant than not to do
something you really want to'. IOW, it's a really terrible thing
not to do what you desire, so bad as to be worse than killing an
infant.
AFAIK, Blake didn't have anything in particular against infants!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Mike Oliver
> Putting it all together, the meaning is: "If there's something you
> are always wanting, then you should do something about it. It would
> be terribly evil to just go on desiring it -- so evil that, if you had
> to choose between murdering an innocent baby and suppressing your own
> desires like that, you should commit the murder."
>
> I trust that Blake was exaggerating.
This is a complete non-sequitur on my part, but now that Blake
has come up I can't help but mention the poem of his that
Nobody recited in "Dead Man":
Every night, and every morn,
Some to misery are born
Every morn, and every night,
Some are born to sweet delight
Some are born to sweet delight
Some are bort to endless night
And now that I hear it in my head again, doesn't it sound an
awful lot like
In brightest day, in blackest night
No evil shall escape my sight
Let those who worship evil's might
Beware my power -- Green Lantern's light
Well?
Jason Cowling
and Hell).
Here's some of the surrounding text:
61 The head Sublime, the heart Pathos, the genitals Beauty, the hands and
feet Proportion.
62 As the air to a bird or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the
contemptible.
63 The crow wish'd every thing was black, the owl that every thing was
white.
64 Exuberance is Beauty.
65 If the lion was advised by the fox, he would be cunning.
66 Improvement makes strait roads; but the crooked roads without improvement
are roads of genius.
67 Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires.
68 Where man is not, nature is barren.
69 Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd.
70 Enough! or too much.
Jason.
June Kim
June Kim
"June Kim" <junaf...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8eloe6$gf9$1...@news.nuri.net...
Mark Brader
> Sooner murder an infant in its craddle than nurse unacted desire.
Both the construction and the wording are unusual; this sounds like
something from a poem (which is not suprising since Blake was a poet).
"Murder" is in the imperative mood. "Sooner" goes with the conjunction
"than", and might have been placed immediately before it, as with the
construction "rather than"; the meaning of "sooner ... than" here is
"in preference to", and the imperative applies to this.
"Craddle" is misspelled; it should be "cradle". "Nurse" is not a usual
verb to use with a desire, but the meaning is to keep the desire alive.
"Unacted" is also unusual, but means "not acted on".
Putting it all together, the meaning is: "If there's something you
are always wanting, then you should do something about it. It would
be terribly evil to just go on desiring it -- so evil that, if you had
to choose between murdering an innocent baby and suppressing your own
desires like that, you should commit the murder."
I trust that Blake was exaggerating.
--
Mark Brader "I like to think of [this] as self-explanatory."
Toronto "I hope *I* think of [it] that way."
m...@vex.net -- Donald Westlake: "Trust Me On This"
My text in this article is in the public domain.
John O'Flaherty
> Sooner murder an infant in its craddle than nurse unacted desire.
>
> What does this mean? (I read this line from a book, _If You Want
> to Write_ by Brenda Ueland)
Blake is equating an unfulfilled desire to a murdered infant.
john
Dr Zen
He's not. He's saying it's a worse thing than a murdered infant.
Dr Zen
gale...@mail.com (Gwen Lenker) wrote:
>On Tue, 02 May 2000 21:39:01 -0700, Dr Zen
><daveyrul...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <390F921D...@toast.net>, John O'Flaherty
>><ofla...@toast.net> wrote:
>>>June Kim wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sooner murder an infant in its craddle than nurse unacted
>>desire.
>>>>
>>>> What does this mean? (I read this line from a book, _If You
>>Want
>>>> to Write_ by Brenda Ueland)
>>>
>>>Blake is equating an unfulfilled desire to a murdered infant.
>>
infant.
>
>and nurturing of an "unacted" desire which Blake compares
>unfavorably to infanticide. I think Blake allows that the
desire
>may go unfulfilled so long as a vigorous attempt has been made
to
>fulfill it.
>
>Not taking any action at all ensures that the desire will never
>grow into fulfillment, and continuing to indulge in the fantasy
>that it will is insupportable.
>
>
Totally agree. That was very nicely put.
Jason Cowling
William wrote in message ...
>>
>> What does this mean? (I read this line from a book, _If You Want
>> to Write_ by Brenda Ueland)
>>
>
>My money's on Blake meaning it is better to stifle desire
>at the earliest moment rather than wait for it to grow (and
>begin to require nursing). In otherwords, the infant is a
>metaphor for the beginnings of desire.-Wm
>
I won't comment extensively, but Wm raised a good point about the metaphor
of the beginnings of desire. Creation is at the heart of the passage, its
growth/death, positivity/negativity... in essence the circumference/locus of
Creation and Nature/mankind. The "crooked roads of genius" comments on the
perfection of Nature's dappled yet perfect (Pied Beauty) roads, prior to the
straight yet limiting roads (pathways) of mankind's thought.
Evolution/growth precludes downfall, its better to kill the infant than
suckle the unacted. Unacted, doesn't just mean not occuring, it means
impossible or outside of the Act (of Existence's play). "Where man is not,
Nature is barren" shifts the locus of Nature to Mankind. Nature cannot be
defined, unless mankind defines it through thoughts/acts. "Truth can never
be told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd." accreses the subtly
rendered differences; Truth is impossible to understand without belief. The
primary Creation may be inward, God creates the Universe from within
himself, or outward. So our knowledge is inward (Humanism) or outward
(Naturalism), but either way our truths are rooted in the primary Act, which
cannot be understood without belief. Without an Act there isn't a Scene.
Jason.
Gwen Lenker
<daveyrul...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <390F921D...@toast.net>, John O'Flaherty
><ofla...@toast.net> wrote:
>>June Kim wrote:
>>
>>> Sooner murder an infant in its craddle than nurse unacted
>desire.
>>>
>>> What does this mean? (I read this line from a book, _If You
>Want
>>> to Write_ by Brenda Ueland)
>>
John O'Flaherty
> In article <390F921D...@toast.net>, John O'Flaherty
> <ofla...@toast.net> wrote:
> >June Kim wrote:
> >
> >> Sooner murder an infant in its craddle than nurse unacted
> desire.
> >>
> >> What does this mean? (I read this line from a book, _If You
> Want
> >> to Write_ by Brenda Ueland)
> >
> >Blake is equating an unfulfilled desire to a murdered infant.
> >
> >john
> >
>
> He's not. He's saying it's a worse thing than a murdered infant.
You're right, 'equating' wasn't the right word. But he put them in a comparison,
making them comparable, and by doing so made them similar. I didn't think your
first response brought out that aspect.
john
Stephen Toogood
<gale...@mail.com> writes
>On Tue, 02 May 2000 21:39:01 -0700, Dr Zen
>
>>In article <390F921D...@toast.net>, John O'Flaherty
>><ofla...@toast.net> wrote:
>>>June Kim wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sooner murder an infant in its craddle than nurse unacted
>>desire.
>>>>
>>>> What does this mean? (I read this line from a book, _If You
>>Want
>>>> to Write_ by Brenda Ueland)
>>>
>>>Blake is equating an unfulfilled desire to a murdered infant.
>>
>
>and nurturing of an "unacted" desire which Blake compares
>unfavorably to infanticide. I think Blake allows that the desire
>may go unfulfilled so long as a vigorous attempt has been made to
>fulfill it.
>
>Not taking any action at all ensures that the desire will never
>grow into fulfillment, and continuing to indulge in the fantasy
>that it will is insupportable.
>
Blake headed this and other phrases 'Proverbs of Hell'.
That suggests to me that he may not have been encouraging his readers to
endorse their sentiment.
--
Stephen Toogood
William
>
> What does this mean? (I read this line from a book, _If You Want
> to Write_ by Brenda Ueland)
>
Gwen Lenker
<ste...@stenches.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Fine. But we ought also to remember that (see Jason's post in parallel)
>Blake headed this and other phrases 'Proverbs of Hell'.
>
>That suggests to me that he may not have been encouraging his readers to
>endorse their sentiment.
Hold on, let me look. (Jason's post in parallel, Jason's post in
par--aha!) "Surrounding Text . . . ," well. Yes. Ahem.
That goes some way toward explaining the nagging feeling that the
sentiment was a little too contemporary.
It's never *only* about the language, is it?
Jason Cowling
>mean?
>I'm not sure I understand that passage as you do. To me it seems to say
that if
>truth is told clearly enough to be understood, it _will_ be believed,
rather
>than that belief is necessary for understanding. Is that what you meant?
Accresses is the correct spelling, it means growing, oftentimes of two
separate things into one. It's the plural form of Accresce, derived from
Latin Accrescere~to grow upon or something along those lines. I used the
word because it contains the element of biological growth.
Read line 66 of the excerpt, extract its _philosophy_. Then read line 68
and do the same. Notice the vast difference there. Then in line 69 he
brings the two schools of thought under one act; Creation (it doesn't matter
how you arrive at truth, you have to believe in Creation for truth to
exist). Simply put, nothing exists without an original Creation.
But I am just interpreting, Blake's later poetry is complex and I don't
think a decisive interpretation of its religion and mythology exists.
Jason.
>john
>
>
Jason Cowling
Mark Brader wrote in message <8esfa6$1tk5$1...@news.tht.net>...
>> > Is 'accreses' a misspelling, and if so, for what word? ...
>
>> Accresses is the correct spelling, it means growing, oftentimes of two
>
>I think he means: "'Accresces' is the correct spelling ... it's the
singular
>form of 'accresce'."
>
>It's in the OED, but not the RHU, which only has the adjective
"accrescent."
The OED lists both Accresses and Accresces. It depends if you spell the
root Accresce or Accress. If one is more common than the other let me know
and I'll change my spelling.
Jason.
>--
>Mark Brader "It flies like a truck."
>Toronto "Good. What is a truck?"
>m...@vex.net -- BUCKAROO BANZAI
Jason Cowling
Mark Brader wrote in message <8esj66$20ki$1...@news.tht.net>...
>> The OED lists both Accresses and Accresces. It depends if you spell the
>> root Accresce or Accress.
>
century".
Your correct. I like the word.
>Mark Brader, Toronto "The last time I trusted you, we had Mark."
>m...@vex.net -- Jill, "Home Improvement" (B.K. Taylor)
John O'Flaherty
> William wrote in message ...
> I won't comment extensively, but Wm raised a good point about the metaphor
> of the beginnings of desire. Creation is at the heart of the passage, its
> growth/death, positivity/negativity... in essence the circumference/locus of
> Creation and Nature/mankind. The "crooked roads of genius" comments on the
> perfection of Nature's dappled yet perfect (Pied Beauty) roads, prior to the
> straight yet limiting roads (pathways) of mankind's thought.
> Evolution/growth precludes downfall, its better to kill the infant than
> suckle the unacted. Unacted, doesn't just mean not occuring, it means
> impossible or outside of the Act (of Existence's play). "Where man is not,
> Nature is barren" shifts the locus of Nature to Mankind. Nature cannot be
> defined, unless mankind defines it through thoughts/acts. "Truth can never
> be told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd." accreses the subtly
> rendered differences; Truth is impossible to understand without belief.
Is 'accreses' a misspelling, and if so, for what word? If not, what does it
mean?
I'm not sure I understand that passage as you do. To me it seems to say that if
truth is told clearly enough to be understood, it _will_ be believed, rather
than that belief is necessary for understanding. Is that what you meant?
> The
> primary Creation may be inward, God creates the Universe from within
> himself, or outward. So our knowledge is inward (Humanism) or outward
> (Naturalism), but either way our truths are rooted in the primary Act, which
> cannot be understood without belief. Without an Act there isn't a Scene.
>
> Jason.
john
Mark Brader
> Accresses is the correct spelling, it means growing, oftentimes of two
> separate things into one. It's the plural form of Accresce ...
I think he means: "'Accresces' is the correct spelling ... it's the singular
form of 'accresce'."
It's in the OED, but not the RHU, which only has the adjective "accrescent."
Mark Brader
> root Accresce or Accress.
Look again: the little "7" before the double S spelling means "17th century".
--
Dr Zen
<breat...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>Is 'accreses' a misspelling, and if so, for what word? If not,
what does it
>>mean?
>>I'm not sure I understand that passage as you do. To me it
seems to say
>that if
>>truth is told clearly enough to be understood, it _will_ be
believed,
>rather
>>than that belief is necessary for understanding. Is that what
you meant?
>
No it isn't. Can't possibly be. If you're going to use windy
words, at least check you're spelling them correctly. And if you
presume to give a spelling, be doubly sure it is
right. 'Accresces' is the word you're looking for.
> it means growing, oftentimes of two
>separate things into one.
In that case, why not use 'accrete', which is a more common word?
>It's the plural form of Accresce
No. It's not the plural. It's the third person singular.
>, derived from
>Latin Accrescere~to grow upon or something along those lines.
'Grow together' would be about right.
>I used the
>word because it contains the element of biological growth.
It suggests the formation of planets to me, but fair enough.
Dr Zen
John O'Flaherty
> June Kim <junaf...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8eloe6$gf9$1...@news.nuri.net...
> > Sooner murder an infant in its craddle than nurse unacted desire.
> >
> > What does this mean? (I read this line from a book, _If You Want
> > to Write_ by Brenda Ueland)
> >
> > - June
>
> My money's on Blake meaning it is better to stifle desire
> at the earliest moment rather than wait for it to grow (and
> begin to require nursing). In otherwords, the infant is a
> metaphor for the beginnings of desire.-Wm
I think you have it exactly right, and expressed succinctly too.
john
Barry
John O'Flaherty <ofla...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:3912568E...@toast.net...
In Malcolm Bradbury's novel 'The History Man' that line
( and it's contradictory interpretations ) plays a crucial part.
In fact, it's the heart of the book.
It's a very good novel. Lots of 'clever' arsing about. 70's
Marxist and structuralist nonsense with jokes. And a little
sex.
Dr Zen
Did you see the TV adaptation? Fruity. Caused quite a stir.
croc...@btopenworld.com
> In article <8elp4a$h4k$1...@news.nuri.net>, "June Kim"
> <junaf...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >news:8eloe6$gf9$1...@news.nuri.net...
> >> Sooner murder an infant in its craddle than nurse unacted
> desire.
> >>
> >> What does this mean? (I read this line from a book, _If You
> Want
> >> to Write_ by Brenda Ueland)
> >>
> >> - June
> >>
>
> means 'it would be better to kill an infant than not to do
> something you really want to'. IOW, it's a really terrible thing
> not to do what you desire, so bad as to be worse than killing an
> infant.
>
> AFAIK, Blake didn't have anything in particular against infants!
>
>
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
semir...@my-deja.com
> On Monday, 1 May 2000 08:00:00 UTC+1, Dr Zen wrote:
Somebody posting from btopenworld replying to a 15 year old thread.
As has been discussed this is easy enough if you have a mind to do it.
CDB
> Dr Zen wrote:
>>> "June Kim" <junaf...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Does this line mean "if you want to kill an infant, just do it"?
>>>> desires.
>>>> Want to Write_ by Brenda Ueland)
>> would be better to kill an infant than not to do something you
>> really want to'. IOW, it's a really terrible thing not to do what
>> you desire, so bad as to be worse than killing an infant.
>> AFAIK, Blake didn't have anything in particular against infants!
>> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
>> Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in
>> Usenet - Free!
> Regarding Dr Zen's mention of The History Man, it is the Scottish
> schoolteacer Ann who first quotes this Blake quotation to Howard
> Kirk, who of course misinterprets it. The word 'nurse' is all
> important here and totally changes the meaning. A lot of feminists
> (and me included who isn't one) didn't like the ending in 1975 when
> she finally submits to Kirk at the expense of the studious Carmody
> who dares to stand up to Kirk's bullying.
principle, contrasted with the obedience of Heaven) from Blake's
_Marriage of Heaven and Hell_. The proverbs have great undergraduate
appeal as they stand, but they can only be understood in the context of
the whole work.
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/blake_ma.html
How do you know but every bird that cuts the airy way is an immense
world of delight, closed by your senses five?
James Hogg
--
James
Peter Moylan
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> semir...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 12:01:59 PM UTC+1, croc...@btopenworld.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, 1 May 2000 08:00:00 UTC+1, Dr Zen wrote:
>> __________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Somebody posting from btopenworld replying to a 15 year old thread.
>>
>> As has been discussed this is easy enough if you have a mind to do it.
> And using Google Groups to do so.
Searching GG for "Sooner murder an infant in its craddle..." (note
spelling) yields several posts from this thread, followed by ones from
2000.
--
athel
Mike Barnes
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a new "longest thread" record.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Peter T. Daniels
> croc...@btopenworld.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 1 May 2000 08:00:00 UTC+1, Dr Zen wrote:
> >>[...]
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a new "longest thread" record.
so it's far from the oldest that's been resuscitated.
Sneaky O. Possum
news:mjclcn$rri$2...@dont-email.me:
> On 18/05/15 21:29, semir...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 12:01:59 PM UTC+1, croc...@btopenworld.com
>> wrote:
>>> On Monday, 1 May 2000 08:00:00 UTC+1, Dr Zen wrote:
>> __________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Somebody posting from btopenworld replying to a 15 year old thread.
>>
>> As has been discussed this is easy enough if you have a mind to do
>> it.
>
> Note also: a Goggle Groups user, but without a gmail address.
--
S.O.P.
Peter T. Daniels
As I already replied to you, it is the statistical near-unanimity that needs
to be explained.
Richard Tobin
>As I already replied to you, it is the statistical near-unanimity that needs
>to be explained.
Google Groups posters used gmail addresses. Even if 9 out of a sample
of 10 follow-ups to ancient articles used gmail addresses, that would
not be statistically significant (p = 0.16).
And that's ignoring the fact that inexperienced Google Groups users
are more likely to have gmail addresses.
-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <084534b4-a117-4a61...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >As I already replied to you, it is the statistical near-unanimity that needs
> >to be explained.
>
> But do you have any statistics? I showed
> that, on my server, 71% of
> Google Groups posters
> used gmail addresses. Even if 9 out of a sample
> of 10 follow-ups to ancient articles used gmail addresses, that would
> not be statistically significant (p = 0.16).
>
> And that's ignoring the fact that inexperienced Google Groups users
> are more likely to have gmail addresses.
Richard Tobin
>> >As I already replied to you, it is the statistical near-unanimity
>> >that needs to be explained.
>> But do you have any statistics? I showed
>I haven't seen that
You posted a follow-up to that article, in which you quoted the
statistics.
>> that, on my server, 71% of Google Groups posters
>Individuals, or messages?
>> used gmail addresses. Even if 9 out of a sample
>> of 10 follow-ups to ancient articles used gmail addresses, that would
>> not be statistically significant (p = 0.16).
>>
>> And that's ignoring the fact that inexperienced Google Groups users
>> are more likely to have gmail addresses.
>Since you want to refute the impression with statistics, find the statistics!
claimed "statistical near-unanimity" without posting any.
In summary,
- you have claimed that "NO SUCH MESSAGES, over however many months
or even years they have been appearing, COME FROM ANYONE BUT GMAIL
USERS";
- when this was shown to be wrong, you changed it to "statistical
near-unanimity", without any evidence that it is statistically
different from the proportion of gmail users among Google Groups
posters in general;
- you have claimed that "Nothing about GG itself makes it easy to see
long-dead threads" when in fact it does exactly that through its
search interface;
- you have claimed that the likely explanation is that "some sort
of browsing function provided through gmail ... gives oldest-first",
when in fact no-one has been able to find any kind of usenet
browsing in gmail.
Unless you come up with something concrete to support your position,
I have nothing more to say about it.
-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <ea5f84a6-9ff9-40fb...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> >As I already replied to you, it is the statistical near-unanimity
> >> >that needs to be explained.
>
> >> But do you have any statistics? I showed
>
> >I haven't seen that
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/aJjXMAgS5HA/fzfAVaD3mNUJ
you refer to:
"There are about 100,000 articles on my server posted through Google
Groups[1]. These are from about 9,000 different users[2]. 71% of
these users use gmail addresses[3]."
However, since there are over 100,000 _threads_ in aue alone, that's hardly
a representative sample.
> You posted a follow-up to that article, in which you quoted the
> statistics.
>
> >> that, on my server, 71% of Google Groups posters
>
> >Individuals, or messages?
>
> Individuals.
>
> >> used gmail addresses. Even if 9 out of a sample
> >> of 10 follow-ups to ancient articles used gmail addresses, that would
> >> not be statistically significant (p = 0.16).
> >>
> >> And that's ignoring the fact that inexperienced Google Groups users
> >> are more likely to have gmail addresses.
>
> >Since you want to refute the impression with statistics, find the statistics!
>
> What do you mean? I have posted statistics. You on the other hand
> claimed "statistical near-unanimity" without posting any.
long-dead threads.
> In summary,
>
> - you have claimed that "NO SUCH MESSAGES, over however many months
> or even years they have been appearing, COME FROM ANYONE BUT GMAIL
> USERS";
>
> - when this was shown to be wrong,
appeared today.
> you changed it to "statistical
> near-unanimity", without any evidence that it is statistically
> different from the proportion of gmail users among Google Groups
> posters in general;
> - you have claimed that "Nothing about GG itself makes it easy to see
> long-dead threads" when in fact it does exactly that through its
> search interface;
> - you have claimed that the likely explanation is that "some sort
> of browsing function provided through gmail ... gives oldest-first",
> when in fact no-one has been able to find any kind of usenet
> browsing in gmail.
> Unless you come up with something concrete to support your position,
> I have nothing more to say about it.
Sneaky O. Possum
news:084534b4-a117-4a61...@googlegroups.com:
> On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 1:43:10 PM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org> wrote in
>> news:mjclcn$rri$2...@dont-email.me:
>>
>> > On 18/05/15 21:29, semir...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >> On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 12:01:59 PM UTC+1,
>> >> croc...@btopenworld.com wrote:
>> >>> On Monday, 1 May 2000 08:00:00 UTC+1, Dr Zen wrote:
>> >> __________________________________________________________________
>> >>
>> >> Somebody posting from btopenworld replying to a 15 year old
>> >> thread.
>> >>
>> >> As has been discussed this is easy enough if you have a mind to do
>> >> it.
>> >
>> > Note also: a Goggle Groups user, but without a gmail address.
>>
>> Duly noted. Paging Mr. Daniels, your counterexample is ready...
>
> One swallow does not a spring make, or whatever the saying is.
that the *only* thing all of the resurrected threads now have in common
is their origination from Gurgle Gropes.
Now, as I've already said, I don't think the problem is *caused* by GG: I
think it's caused by inexperienced posters *using* GG. I've already
posted a detailed explanation of how an inexperienced poster using GG
might resurrect a thread: that explanation is admittedly hypothetical,
but nobody's falsified it yet.
You, on the other hand, claimed that there was something in gmail that
was leading posters to old threads, and you cited the fact that all the
revivifying posts came from gmail users. If you choose to frame a
hypothesis in a way that allows it to be completely falsified by a single
data point, that's not the single data point's fault.
--
S.O.P.
Peter T. Daniels
Charles Bishop
resurrecting an old thread were gmail users. I'm tempted to offer odds,
but they would be too long to bother with. Then when people show that he
was wrong, will find a reason to explain why he was really right.
It's almost like street theatre or performance art.
--
charles
Charles Bishop
acknowledge that positions he held have been shown to be wrong, but will,
1) SHOUT in order to convince that he was correct after all
or
2) Slightly change the objective to show that he was correct after all
It must be difficult to go through life not being able to admit to an
error once in a while.
--
charles, more to be pitied than censured?
Peter T. Daniels
definition of "science."
wja...@gmail.com
> In article <8elp4a$h4k$1...@news.nuri.net>, "June Kim"
> >Does this line mean "if you want to kill an infant, just do it"?
> >
> >news:8eloe6$gf9$1...@news.nuri.net...
> >> Sooner murder an infant in its craddle than nurse unacted
> desire.
> >>
> Want
> >> to Write_ by Brenda Ueland)
> >>
>
> No wonder people think Blake was a bit of a frootloop! It
> means 'it would be better to kill an infant than not to do
> something you really want to'. IOW, it's a really terrible thing
> not to do what you desire, so bad as to be worse than killing an
> infant.
>
> AFAIK, Blake didn't have anything in particular against infants!
>
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
menonde...@gmail.com
Laszlo Lebrun
> does it mean that someone should kill their budding desire if it cannot
> be full-filled in the future
--
Stand up against TTIP and ISDS !
CDB
[William Blake's "Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse
unacted desires."]
> does it mean that someone should kill their budding desire if it
> cannot be full-filled in the future
you can't have is very bad, worse than murdering a baby, and may be
implying that doing so will kill something important in you.
You are quoting from the Proverbs of Hell, so another interpretation is
that you should act immediately on all your desires.
In another work, Blake suggests that the fault is in holding on to the
desire for something unattainable. Very Buddhist.
"He who binds to himself a joy,
Does the winged life destroy.
He who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in eternity's sunrise."
The word in your subject line should be spelled "cradle".
Janet
menonde...@gmail.com says...
> does it mean that someone should kill their budding desire if it cannot be full-filled in the future
that never develops its full potential.
Janet
Sneaky O. Possum
news:MPG.305d2ff...@news.individual.net:
desires or give them up: cherishing a desire without taking action to
fulfill it corrupts your soul. It's a less weenie version of 'Follow
your bliss.'
--
S.O.P.