KJV BIBLE & OTHER TRANSLATIONS

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Peter Green

unread,
Oct 23, 1991, 3:35:07 PM10/23/91
to

Recommendations please for a good modern edition of KJV. No, I'm not about
to jump into the (no doubt hand-tooled) shoes of the unlamented Swaggart; I'm
more interested in it from a stylistic viewpoint.

Being an arrogant sod, I refuse to buy the ubiquitous Sunday school versions
with words in red to make it easier for those benighted souls whose entire
reading is confined to same. All I want is a decent quality hardback.
A good introduction and some annotation would be added bonuses.

Also, could some knowledgable person please post a comparison of translations.
I have a copy of the New Jerusalem B., which seems to be a well-written, with
scholarly (i.e. the editors didn't flunk palaeontology and appear to be fairly
cluey about the various Semitic and other cultures) annotations. I've also
looked at the Good News B. - not exactly soul-stirring stuff. Let's hear
about the others + translations of individual books eg: Psalms, Job.

Thanks in advance,

Peter.
--
Peter Green s75...@zeus.usq.edu.au
*******************************************************************************
* "Wit, you know, is the unexpected copulation of ideas..." (Samuel Johnson ) *
*******************************************************************************

Mark Ellingham

unread,
Oct 27, 1991, 3:00:05 PM10/27/91
to
There is always the Interpreters Bible, four translations in one.
cjs

--
Carlin Sappenfield - Science Library, Vanderbilt University
sap...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu sap...@vuctrvax.bitnet

Ann

unread,
Oct 28, 1991, 6:31:35 AM10/28/91
to
> looked at the Good News B. - not exactly soul-stirring stuff. Let's hear
> about the others + translations of individual books eg: Psalms, Job.

I recently purchased a copy of the Lorimer translation from J.Smith
in what I think is called "the Doric"
Extremely expensive, but worth every penny.
I challenged my nieces to read some of it to me - the older one
had most trouble - she can only talk "posh" - but the younger one sounded
convincing - she said reading "Oor Willie" had helped her.

Bargain books also has a translation of the Psalms, inexpensive.

Ann

Charles E Thorne

unread,
Oct 29, 1991, 11:10:50 AM10/29/91
to
In article <s75197.688246507@zeus> s75...@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (Peter Green) writes:

>Recommendations please for a good modern edition of KJV. No, I'm not about
>to jump into the (no doubt hand-tooled) shoes of the unlamented Swaggart; I'm
>more interested in it from a stylistic viewpoint.

>Being an arrogant sod, I refuse to buy the ubiquitous Sunday school versions
>with words in red to make it easier for those benighted souls whose entire
>reading is confined to same. All I want is a decent quality hardback.
>A good introduction and some annotation would be added bonuses.

>Also, could some knowledgable person please post a comparison of translations.
>I have a copy of the New Jerusalem B., which seems to be a well-written, with
>scholarly (i.e. the editors didn't flunk palaeontology and appear to be fairly
>cluey about the various Semitic and other cultures) annotations. I've also
>looked at the Good News B. - not exactly soul-stirring stuff. Let's hear
>about the others + translations of individual books eg: Psalms, Job.

I personally prefer the Jerusalem version for a number of reasons. The last
I checked, it was one of the few, readily available translations which used
modern sources. It also seems to be less biased in many areas.

The KJV (original) had the advantage that it was good literature (for the
time) but the disadvantage that a lot of politics intervened. Most of the
similar translations (include the latest KJV) are still very political.

I particularly object to sections that mistranslate alleged references
to homosexuality--the word didn't exist in Paul's time, so why put the
word in a translation?

Charliel

Evelyn C. Leeper

unread,
Oct 29, 1991, 11:28:33 AM10/29/91
to
In article <s75197.688246507@zeus> s75...@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (Peter Green) writes:
>Also, could some knowledgable person please post a comparison of translations.
>I have a copy of the New Jerusalem B., which seems to be a well-written, with
>scholarly (i.e. the editors didn't flunk palaeontology and appear to be fairly
>cluey about the various Semitic and other cultures) annotations. I've also
>looked at the Good News B. - not exactly soul-stirring stuff. Let's hear
>about the others + translations of individual books eg: Psalms, Job.

PUBLISHERS WEEKLY recently had an article comparing Bible translations. (Alas,
it made not be available in Australia.) As far as translations go, I might
suggest the recent Jewish re-translation of the Old Testament as perhaps more
accurate, and having less of an "agenda," than Christian translations, and (if
you know any Greek) a interlinear text of the New Testament.

Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or e...@mtgzy.att.com
--
"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use." --Galileo

Rita Marie Rouvalis

unread,
Oct 29, 1991, 12:15:40 PM10/29/91
to
In article <s75197.688246507@zeus> s75...@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (Peter Green) writes:
>
>Recommendations please for a good modern edition of KJV. No, I'm not about
>to jump into the (no doubt hand-tooled) shoes of the unlamented Swaggart; I'm
>more interested in it from a stylistic viewpoint.


The New International Version (NIV) is a nice translation. It
takes into account modern sources (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls), and
stays very faithful to the Greek for the NT (I can't speak for the
Hebrew in the OT) -- to the point where it errs in favor of an awkward
construciton in English to keep the exact meaning of the Greek.

I hear the New American Standard (NAS) is also a good version
and also very readable.

>Being an arrogant sod, I refuse to buy the ubiquitous Sunday school versions
>with words in red to make it easier for those benighted souls whose entire
>reading is confined to same. All I want is a decent quality hardback.
>A good introduction and some annotation would be added bonuses.

This is more a reflection of the publisher than the actual
translation. I know the NIV comes under a hardbound, brown cover -- no
red words or maps or illustrations -- for about $4.


>Also, could some knowledgable person please post a comparison of translations.
>I have a copy of the New Jerusalem B., which seems to be a well-written, with
>scholarly (i.e. the editors didn't flunk palaeontology and appear to be fairly
>cluey about the various Semitic and other cultures) annotations. I've also
>looked at the Good News B. - not exactly soul-stirring stuff. Let's hear
>about the others + translations of individual books eg: Psalms, Job.

Zondervan publishes an volume that compares the KJV, NIV, and
original Greek of the NT line-by-line.


--
Rita Marie Rouvalis ri...@eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation | EFF administrivia to: off...@eff.org
155 Second Street | Flames to:
Cambridge, MA 02141 617-864-0665 | women-not-to-...@eff.org

Francis Muir

unread,
Oct 29, 1991, 2:29:09 PM10/29/91
to
Jack Campin writes:

It might be nice to have an edition that pointed out the
politically motivated translation decisions, but it's the
original KJV that's had the historical impact on English-
speaking societies, not its successors. If you want to
understand that impact, surely that makes it the one to
go for?

Is the Geneva Bible available in cheap editions from anywhere?
As that was the one Shakespeare used and the one that powered
the English and Scottish Reformations, it has even more historical
significance.

I have never underdstood why the King James Version was not treated as
the literature that it surely is. That is, why are not parts of it set
in English Literature courses in the United Kingdom? Important social
issues discussed - albeit metaphorically - in great language. This describes
the KJV as readily as it does Shakespeare.

philomath
fra...@sep.stanford.edu
En quoi cognoissez-vous la folie anticque?
En quoi cognoissez-vous la sagesse presente?

Jack Campin

unread,
Oct 29, 1991, 1:39:12 PM10/29/91
to
cth...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) wrote:
> I personally prefer the Jerusalem version for a number of reasons. The last
> I checked, it was one of the few, readily available translations which used
> modern sources. It also seems to be less biased in many areas.
> The KJV (original) had the advantage that it was good literature (for the
> time) but the disadvantage that a lot of politics intervened. Most of the
> similar translations (include the latest KJV) are still very political.

It might be nice to have an edition that pointed out the politically


motivated translation decisions, but it's the original KJV that's had the

historical impact on English-speaking societies, not its successors. If


you want to understand that impact, surely that makes it the one to go for?

Is the Geneva Bible available in cheap editions from anywhere? As that
was the one Shakespeare used and the one that powered the English and
Scottish Reformations, it has even more historical significance.

Personally, I don't care one iota whether a translation reflects modern
standards of accuracy. The Hebrew/Greek original has never had any meaning
for more than a minute coterie of scholars, and the chances of a new
version having the influence on everyday life that the Geneva and
Authorized Versions had are nil. Not that its irrelevance to any ongoing
historical process is likely to stop the Bible translation industry. Of
the making of many books there is no end...

--
-- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6854 work 041 556 1878 home
JANET: ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913
INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: ja...@glasgow.uucp

Rita Marie Rouvalis

unread,
Oct 29, 1991, 2:59:23 PM10/29/91
to

>I have never underdstood why the King James Version was not treated as
>the literature that it surely is. That is, why are not parts of it set
>in English Literature courses in the United Kingdom? Important social
>issues discussed - albeit metaphorically - in great language. This describes
>the KJV as readily as it does Shakespeare.

Interesting. The KJV was covered as part of my Great Books of
Antiquity requirement in college. Probably the cheapest text I bought
that semester.

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Oct 29, 1991, 5:23:38 PM10/29/91
to
In article <1991Oct29....@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>
ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) waxes philosophically on the holy subjects:

>Personally, I don't care one iota whether a translation reflects modern
>standards of accuracy. The Hebrew/Greek original has never had any meaning

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>for more than a minute coterie of scholars,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

...and about 40 million Jews, and twice as many Greek speakers. Are you
really that bigoted, or simply too stupid for words?

> and the chances of a new
>version having the influence on everyday life that the Geneva and
>Authorized Versions had are nil. Not that its irrelevance to any ongoing
>historical process is likely to stop the Bible translation industry. Of
>the making of many books there is no end...


>--
>-- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
>Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6854 work 041 556 1878 home
>JANET: ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913
>INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: ja...@glasgow.uucp


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
| ``If there are no Platonic ideals, then what did we fight for?'' |
| (A Spanish anarchist, after 1938) |
| Mikhail Zeleny Harvard |
| 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707 doesn't |
| Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 think |
| (617) 661-8151 so |
| email zel...@math.harvard.edu or zel...@zariski.harvard.edu |
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Brent Davies

unread,
Oct 29, 1991, 8:22:41 PM10/29/91
to
s75...@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (Peter Green) writes:

>Also, could some knowledgable person please post a comparison of translations.
>I have a copy of the New Jerusalem B., which seems to be a well-written, with
>scholarly (i.e. the editors didn't flunk palaeontology and appear to be fairly
>cluey about the various Semitic and other cultures) annotations. I've also
>looked at the Good News B. - not exactly soul-stirring stuff. Let's hear
>about the others + translations of individual books eg: Psalms, Job.

In my opinion, the newest revision of the New English Bible (finished last
year, I think) is by far the best of the lot. The board of translators
was quite impressive, including both Christian and Jewish scholars. New
Jerusalem is pretty good, if a little free; Good News is definitely hippy
stuff--very accessible, if you're willing to lose *completely* the poetry
of the original. I find the RSV a stodgy dilution of the KJV. The KJV,
of course, is a classic in the same league as Shakespeare, even if it does
occasionally wax unintentionally humourous by reason of almost four centuries
of evolution of English ("Thou shalt have no bull in thy house..." "Bailaam
tied his ass to a tree and walked a mile..."). The NASV (New American Standard
Version) is an extremely reputable translation, essentially the scholarly
standard in the Protestant Bible Belt there... but, though I've read it, I
vastly prefer (as I've mentioned) the New English. The NASV is... well, very
*American*. The New English preserves the poetry of the Hebrew better than
any of the others. (And I'm Jewish, so I'm not guessing!)

Also, try out some of the ancient translations. Wycliffe's Middle English
translation is fascinating, even startling, in the way that it casts new light
on some verses. The Douay Bible is interesting, but VERY Catholic. The
Great Bible (Henry VIII's translation) is also extremely interesting, again
mostly for linguistic reasons.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Brent Davies
Melbourne, Australia
br...@mlacus.oz.au

Francis Muir

unread,
Oct 29, 1991, 6:39:07 PM10/29/91
to
Mikhail Zeleny writes:

Jack Campin waxes philosophically on the holy subjects:

Personally, I don't care one iota whether a translation
reflects modern standards of accuracy. The Hebrew/Greek

original has never had any meaning for more than a minute
coterie of scholars,

...and about 40 million Jews, and twice as many Greek speakers.

Are you really that bigoted, or simply too stupid for words?

What an extraordinarily mannerless outburst. The thread has always been
about the Bible vis-a-vis English readers, and it was in this context that
Jack Campin was posting.

Liam R. E. Quin

unread,
Oct 29, 1991, 3:34:20 PM10/29/91
to
s75...@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (Peter Green) writes:
> Recommendations please for a good modern edition of KJV.
> Also, could some knowledgable person please post a comparison of
> translations.

Perhaps this ought to be in soc.religion.christion too, but since it
isn't, I shall assume that you want to treat the Bible as a work of
literature rather than (or as well as) an object of veneration.

The finest edition of the KJB gospels is probably that of the Golden Cockerel
Press, but you are looking at spending several hundred dollars even for a
fac simile, and the originals cost more than a modest SPARCstation :-)


The finest modern translations of which I am aware are
* The Jerusalem Bible
excellent on the NT, although the NEB (see below) is better on the poetry

* The New English Bible
This has been revised recently, and the only gripe I have against

* The Revised English Bible
is that the there are no markers in the text to indicate footnotes.
The translation, is very good indeed.

Both the NEB and the REB use a deliberately neutral British English, and
the result is very readable and yet retains somthing of the poetry.

* The Good News Bible
is a paraphrase, and is aimed at the `low-church' people
And no, that isn't a derogative term, if you're wondering!

* The New International Version
is perhaps not quite as fine a tranlation as the REB or NEB.

I'd suggest getting either
the NEB (with Apocrypha), which has good footnotes and is a fine
translation, although perhaps not as fine as the New Jerusalem in
parts of the New Tesatament,

or
The REB (again, with Apocrypha, & try to get one with clear footnote
markers and verse numbers if you can), *together* with
A King James or (better) Revised Standard Version (RSV), which has
much clearer English in some places, and will be somewhat less misleading
in others to modern readers. Get an RSV with cross-references -- often
a column in the middle of the page, giving pointers to other verses.

Why?
Because the later books of the Bible were written by people surrounded by
and living in a culture in which the earlier parts of our Bible were as
universally known as, say, Mark Twain, Tolkien, and Stephen King today.
A writer will allude to somthing sometimes half-consciously, just as we're
not always aware that we're quoting Dickens when we say `not to put too fine
a point on it', and sometimes consciously. The cross-references can be a
big help.

Another slightly more expensive thing to do is to get one of the computerised
hand-held bibles, which have automatic searching.
Or get a text retrieval package and use it to browse the Bible from time
to time.


One way of comparing translations is to get something like the Church of
England's Alternate Service Book, and see which translation was used for
the readings prescribed for a given day. The text is there, and you can
compare it with the others.

Liam

PS: what did I mean by `misleading to modern readers?' See the quote in my
signature below. The meaning's obvious, right? Well, in the 16th and 17th C.
maybe it was.

--
Liam Quin, l...@sq.com, SoftQuad, Toronto, 416 239-4801; the barefoot programmer
`Jacob sod pottage' [Gen. 25 xxix, King James Bible]

Wayne Citrin

unread,
Oct 29, 1991, 7:04:17 PM10/29/91
to
>I have never underdstood why the King James Version was not treated as
>the literature that it surely is. That is, why are not parts of it set
>in English Literature courses in the United Kingdom? Important social
>issues discussed - albeit metaphorically - in great language. This describes
>the KJV as readily as it does Shakespeare.
>

George Steiner, in "After Babel," makes the interesting point that the one
book that, arguably, has influenced the development of the English language
more than any other, is a translation: the King James Version.

Wayne


Wayne Citrin
cit...@soglio.colorado.edu
cit...@cs.colorado.edu

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Oct 30, 1991, 9:12:51 AM10/30/91
to
In article <1991Oct29....@leland.Stanford.EDU>
fra...@hanauma.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:

>Mikhail Zeleny writes:

> Jack Campin waxes philosophically on the holy subjects:

JC:


> Personally, I don't care one iota whether a translation
> reflects modern standards of accuracy. The Hebrew/Greek
> original has never had any meaning for more than a minute

^^^^^ ^^^
> coterie of scholars,

MZ:


> ...and about 40 million Jews, and twice as many Greek speakers.
> Are you really that bigoted, or simply too stupid for words?

FM:


>What an extraordinarily mannerless outburst. The thread has always been
>about the Bible vis-a-vis English readers, and it was in this context that
>Jack Campin was posting.

I am well aware of the context; I am also fully capable of interpreting the
meaning of the above statement in accordance with its quantifiers. I might
have allowed another possibility, that Mr Campin was altogether unable to
express himself in writing; however, on a moment's reflexion it will become
quite evident to the reader that this unfortunate handicap is completely
subsumed by (and identical with) his being too stupid for words.

Incidentally, my own (scholarly, and therefore quite disinterested)
understanding of manners is that they are absolutely incompatible with
censuring others for lack thereof. Naturally, a hypocrite will always
berate others for manifesting the likes of his own personal failings;
book lovers will find much more on this subject in La Rochefoucauld.

> philomath
>fra...@sep.stanford.edu
> En quoi cognoissez-vous la folie anticque?
> En quoi cognoissez-vous la sagesse presente?

Francis Muir

unread,
Oct 30, 1991, 10:53:21 AM10/30/91
to
Mikhail Zeleny writes:

Francis Muir writes:

What an extraordinarily mannerless outburst.

... my own (scholarly, and therefore quite disinterested)

understanding of manners is that they are absolutely
incompatible with censuring others for lack thereof.

Are there any others who do not understand that I was commenting on the
posting and not the poster? It is my custom to address text directly, and
not the person behind it. The poster qua person is of no consequence.

Sharon Foster

unread,
Oct 29, 1991, 11:45:41 AM10/29/91
to
There is a New King James' Version - updated language while trying
to retain the flavor - the poetry - of the KJV.

I'm rather partial to the Revised Standard Version for understandability,
and to the New RSV for more nearly gender-inclusive language,
but there are a few passages that just don't sound right to
me in anything but the KJV. I guess it has to do with when
I first read them.

There are translations of the Gospels and Revelation by Richmond
Lattimore which are very interesting. My impression is that
his approach may have been more nearly objective than some
others have been - that is, I don't think he had any particular
denominational ax to grind. This is just my impression - the books
aren't in front of me, so I can't really tell you what his
background is. I know I've seen his name on some ancient
Greek translation.

There is a translation of the book of Job by Stephen Mitchell which
is quite poetic. I think he *is* a poet, and has
translated and/or anthologized other ancient religious poetry.

I've also read from the Jerusalem Bible (of which there is also
a New version), New International, Good News (which
often strikes me as being at about a fourth grade
reading level), and others, but none of them grab
me as much as the RSV or the KJV, probably for the
reason mentioned above.

--
/* Sharon Foster....First Generation Trekkie * fos...@gdc.com */
/* These are my own Biased Personal Opinions (tm) and no one else's! */

/* According to the Census Bureau, in 1990 33.6 million Americans, nearly */
/* one in seven of us, were living below the poverty line, which in 1990 */
/* was defined as a family of four earning $13,359 or less before taxes. */
/* This number is an increase of 2.1 million over the previous year (1989).*/
/* One-fifth of the nation's children live in poverty. So I ask again, */
/* when is "kinder, gentler" going to kick in? After a decade of "Politics*/
/* of the Rich and Famous", are YOU better off than you were before? */

Fred Drinkwater

unread,
Oct 30, 1991, 1:54:09 PM10/30/91
to
Just slightly tangential to the subject: I'll recommend
Don Knuth's book '3:16', which is a series of translations,
commentaries, and artworks, one set for each of the verses
3:16 in each book of the (some version of) bible. At Adobe
this has been described as Don's 'my summer at Adobe' project.
It is a very personal work in several senses,
starting with the selection of 3:16 as the key. Don prefaces
the book by saying that he was looking for a new approach to
studying the whole bible; I'd say he succeeded. The artwork
for the verses is worth the price alone. Those of you in the
Stanford area may have seen the originals displayed at Don's
talk last March (carrying things just a bit too far, the talk
was 3/16/91 at 3:16 PM).

Fred Drinkwater

"Fathers are not interested in FAIR; fathers are interested
in QUIET." W. Cosby

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Oct 30, 1991, 4:03:17 PM10/30/91
to
Francis Muir writes:

Mikhail Zeleny writes:

Francis Muir writes:

FM:


What an extraordinarily mannerless outburst.

MZ:


... my own (scholarly, and therefore quite disinterested)
understanding of manners is that they are absolutely
incompatible with censuring others for lack thereof.

FM:


Are there any others who do not understand that I was commenting on the
posting and not the poster? It is my custom to address text directly, and
not the person behind it. The poster qua person is of no consequence.

Texts have no manners; implied authors may.

However, I agree that, at least in the case of FM's cunning deployment of
personal pronouns, the Foucauldian notion of the death of the author makes
perfectly good sense.

I remain, etc.
MZ

Mike Godwin

unread,
Oct 30, 1991, 7:14:49 PM10/30/91
to
In article <1991Oct30....@husc3.harvard.edu> zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>Incidentally, my own (scholarly, and therefore quite disinterested)
>understanding of manners is that they are absolutely incompatible with
>censuring others for lack thereof. Naturally, a hypocrite will always
>berate others for manifesting the likes of his own personal failings;
>book lovers will find much more on this subject in La Rochefoucauld.

On the other hand, those with a more complete understanding of
discussions of manners will recognize that expressing disapproval
of bad manners has been a fit subject for keen writers and observers
from Castiglione to Lord Chesterfield to Judith Martin.


--Mike


--
Mike Godwin, |"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more
mnem...@eff.org| imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is
(617) 864-0665 | the principle of free thought--not free thought for those
EFF, Cambridge | who agree with us but freedom of thought that we hate."

Barney C. McCartney

unread,
Oct 30, 1991, 5:07:20 PM10/30/91
to
fra...@hanauma.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
>
> I have never underdstood why the King James Version was not treated as
> the literature that it surely is. That is, why are not parts of it set
> in English Literature courses in the United Kingdom? Important social
> issues discussed - albeit metaphorically - in great language. This describes
> the KJV as readily as it does Shakespeare.
>
> philomath

The "Texas List of Unrequired Reading", a list of some 100 books suggested
as "starting points" by the College of Liberal Arts at UT Austin, includes,
among works by Shakespeare, de Tocqueville, Plato, C.S. Lewis, B. Russell,
Tolstoy, Faulkner, Melville, Marx, Orwell, Camus, Boorstin, Kant, Twain,
H. Adams, Rousseau, Conrad, Voltaire, Tuchman, etc, etc., the following
KJV books:

Old Testament- Genesis, Exodus, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiates, Isaiah, & Amos
New Testament- Luke, John, Act, Galatians, & Ephesians

Also, I seem to recall a "Bible as Literature" course being taught at
Cal State Long Beach in late 60's. Are such courses still taught there
or elsewhere?

--Barney C. McCartney
barney.emx.utexas.edu

Chuck Smythe

unread,
Oct 30, 1991, 5:50:49 PM10/30/91
to
In article <30...@gdc.com> fos...@gdc.com (Sharon Foster) writes:
*
*There are translations of the Gospels and Revelation by Richmond
* Lattimore which are very interesting. My impression is that
* his approach may have been more nearly objective than some
* others have been - that is, I don't think he had any particular
* denominational ax to grind. This is just my impression - the books
* aren't in front of me, so I can't really tell you what his
* background is. I know I've seen his name on some ancient
* Greek translation.

Richard Lattimore, perchance? Author of my favorite translations of Homer?
This bears investigation.

Chuck Smythe

Vance Maverick

unread,
Oct 30, 1991, 6:04:52 PM10/30/91
to
In article <13...@ncar.ucar.edu>, chu...@acd.uucp (Chuck Smythe) writes:
|> In article <30...@gdc.com> fos...@gdc.com (Sharon Foster) writes:
|> *
|> *There are translations of the Gospels and Revelation by Richmond
|> * Lattimore which are very interesting.
|>
|> Richard Lattimore, perchance? Author of my favorite translations of Homer?
|> This bears investigation.

Same guy, and his given name is Richmond. Here is the local info:

7. Bible. N.T. Gospels. English. Lattimore. 1979
The four Gospels and the Revelation / newly translated from the
Greek by Richmond Lattimore
New York : Farrar, Straus, Giroux, c1979
Lattimore, Richmond Alexander, 1906

and of course

16. Homer.
The Iliad; translated with an introd. by Richmond Lattimore.
[Chicago] University of Chicago Press [195l]
Lattimore, Richmond Alexander, 1906

among much else.

Vance

Clayton Cramer

unread,
Oct 30, 1991, 8:18:25 PM10/30/91
to
In article <1991Oct30.0...@colorado.edu>, cit...@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Wayne Citrin) writes:
> In article <1991Oct29.1...@leland.Stanford.EDU> fra...@hanauma.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
# #I have never underdstood why the King James Version was not treated as
# #the literature that it surely is. That is, why are not parts of it set
# #in English Literature courses in the United Kingdom? Important social
# #issues discussed - albeit metaphorically - in great language. This describes
# #the KJV as readily as it does Shakespeare.
#
# George Steiner, in "After Babel," makes the interesting point that the one
# book that, arguably, has influenced the development of the English language
# more than any other, is a translation: the King James Version.
#
# Wayne Citrin

I understand that Martin Luther's translation of the Bible into German
had almost as dramatic an influence on Modern German as the KJV did
on Modern English. At least at Sonoma State University, a literature
class I took a while back involved reading from the KJV. It was
sort of disconcerting to realize the level of cultural illiteracy that
has developed when students had absolutely no concept that the word
"Psalm" contains a silent "P" -- it's obvious that the liberal goal
of eliminating all religion from American society has come perilously
close to succeeding.

--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
"Congresses of sheep, passing resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, are of no
value, as long as wolves refuse to be similarly bound."

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Oct 31, 1991, 9:01:28 AM10/31/91
to
In article <1991Oct31....@eff.org>
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1991Oct30....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MZ:


>>Incidentally, my own (scholarly, and therefore quite disinterested)
>>understanding of manners is that they are absolutely incompatible with
>>censuring others for lack thereof. Naturally, a hypocrite will always
>>berate others for manifesting the likes of his own personal failings;
>>book lovers will find much more on this subject in La Rochefoucauld.

MG:


>On the other hand, those with a more complete understanding of
>discussions of manners will recognize that expressing disapproval
>of bad manners has been a fit subject for keen writers and observers
>from Castiglione to Lord Chesterfield to Judith Martin.

Furthermore, those with more adequate reading comprehension skills will
readily recognize the fundamental difference between expressing disapproval
of bad manners and censuring others for lack thereof.

Jack Campin

unread,
Oct 31, 1991, 10:01:22 AM10/31/91
to
cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) wrote:
> it's obvious that the liberal goal of eliminating all religion from
> American society has come perilously close to succeeding.

Given that the people most of us would think of as exemplifying US
liberalism would be (born-again) Jimmy Carter, the American Friends
Service Committee and the Reverend Jesse Jackson, this sounds about
as much in contact with reality as the generality of Clayton's postings.

Charles E Thorne

unread,
Oct 31, 1991, 11:49:15 AM10/31/91
to
>Mikhail Zeleny writes:

> Jack Campin waxes philosophically on the holy subjects:

> Personally, I don't care one iota whether a translation
> reflects modern standards of accuracy. The Hebrew/Greek
> original has never had any meaning for more than a minute
> coterie of scholars,

> ...and about 40 million Jews, and twice as many Greek speakers.
> Are you really that bigoted, or simply too stupid for words?

>What an extraordinarily mannerless outburst. The thread has always been
>about the Bible vis-a-vis English readers, and it was in this context that
>Jack Campin was posting.

If you want to treat the KJV as "literature", that's an acceptable answer.

However, if you're making the presumption that the KJV (and the more recent
translations which are based on that one) that this is somehow related to
the Hebrew and Greek "bible" of early Christian times, then this is in fact
not a translation per se (i.e., not accurate) but is someone's "political"
diatribe.

Mike Godwin

unread,
Oct 31, 1991, 11:46:03 AM10/31/91
to
In article <1991Oct31....@husc3.harvard.edu> zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>
>MG:
>>On the other hand, those with a more complete understanding of
>>discussions of manners will recognize that expressing disapproval
>>of bad manners has been a fit subject for keen writers and observers
>>from Castiglione to Lord Chesterfield to Judith Martin.
>
>Furthermore, those with more adequate reading comprehension skills will
>readily recognize the fundamental difference between expressing disapproval
>of bad manners and censuring others for lack thereof.

If I think you're being unmannerly, and I express disapproval of
your bad manners, am I "censuring" you? If so, you've made a distinction
without a difference.

By the way, since you're interested in reading-comprehension skills,
you may want to know that "adequate" doesn't take the modifier "more."
Something either is adequate or is not.

Julie Lim

unread,
Oct 31, 1991, 12:23:04 PM10/31/91
to
In article <60...@ut-emx.uucp> bar...@ut-emx.uucp (Barney C. McCartney) writes:
>
>Also, I seem to recall a "Bible as Literature" course being taught at
>Cal State Long Beach in late 60's. Are such courses still taught there
>or elsewhere?


UDel has a "Biblical & Classical Literature" course that I sampled
last year. It was scarcely comprehensive in either half-- well, how much of
either can one study in depth in four months?-- but it was okay.


--
MUDname: Sidera "...If I seem to give a damn, please tell me. I would
University of Delaware hate to be giving the wrong impression."

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Nov 1, 1991, 8:20:54 AM11/1/91
to
br...@mlacus.oz.au (Brent Davies) writes:

>zel...@osgood.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>>ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
>>waxes philosophically on the holy subjects:

JC:


>>>Personally, I don't care one iota whether a translation reflects modern
>>>standards of accuracy. The Hebrew/Greek original has never had any meaning
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>for more than a minute coterie of scholars,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

MZ:


>>...and about 40 million Jews, and twice as many Greek speakers. Are you
>>really that bigoted, or simply too stupid for words?

BD:
>Hey, that's a bit rich! Careful, Mikhail--
>
>(a) Most Jews can't read Biblical Hebrew
>(b) Most Greeks can't read Koine

Please refer to the original statement in order to understand why your
comments, regardless of their relation to the truth of the matter, are of
no relevance whatsoever. (Hint: the salient terms are `never', `any', and
`meaning'.)

Clayton Cramer

unread,
Oct 31, 1991, 2:47:40 PM10/31/91
to
In article <1991Oct29.1...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, cth...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
> The KJV (original) had the advantage that it was good literature (for the
> time) but the disadvantage that a lot of politics intervened. Most of the
> similar translations (include the latest KJV) are still very political.
>
> I particularly object to sections that mistranslate alleged references
> to homosexuality--the word didn't exist in Paul's time, so why put the
> word in a translation?
>
> Charliel

If the word you are referring to is "arsenokoites", it's not clear
what the word meant. My understanding is that there are just two
examples of its use, one from 2nd century Greek, the other from
6th century Greek. The 2nd century meaning was something like
"homosexual prostitute", the 6th century meaning was "pederast".
Since we don't know which was meant, or perhaps a third meaning,
it is not unreasonable to assume, based on Paul's culture and
what it thought about homosexuality, that the word means what the
English cognates suggest, "Arse + coitus".

I notice that the NIV translates "arsenokoites" in different
contexts to different phrases. In one place, it uses the phrase
"homosexual offender", in another, a phrase akin to "sexual
depravity".

The process of translation is apparently rather contentious. A
friend worked for the Lockman Foundation (who did the NIV
translation); he tells me that the translators would argue for
MONTHS about how to translate a particular word, and still not
reach consensus about it.

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Oct 31, 1991, 7:35:13 PM10/31/91
to
In article <1991Oct31....@eff.org>
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1991Oct31....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MG:
>>>On the other hand, those with a more complete understanding of
>>>discussions of manners will recognize that expressing disapproval
>>>of bad manners has been a fit subject for keen writers and observers
>>>from Castiglione to Lord Chesterfield to Judith Martin.

MZ:


>>Furthermore, those with more adequate reading comprehension skills will
>>readily recognize the fundamental difference between expressing disapproval
>>of bad manners and censuring others for lack thereof.

MG:


>If I think you're being unmannerly, and I express disapproval of
>your bad manners, am I "censuring" you? If so, you've made a distinction
>without a difference.

A difference may well exist in spite of being too subtle to be noticed by
Your Denseness. A courtly moralist like Castiglione, an aristocratic one
like La Rochefoucauld or La Bruy\`ere, a philistine like Lord Chesterfield,
and even a campy post-modern like Judith Martin, are all concerned with
manners *as such*, eschewing, for various reasons, any attempts at personal
attack or censure. Indeed, in a mannered society, any such attempt would
be considered actionable; on this see the excellent books by V.G.Kiernan
and Norbert Elias.

MG:


>By the way, since you're interested in reading-comprehension skills,
>you may want to know that "adequate" doesn't take the modifier "more."
>Something either is adequate or is not.

This is true only if one rather pedantically takes the word in its original
sense, indicating exact equality or sufficiency; if, however, the word is
taken in its modern sense, as a synonym of `satisfactory' (approved by the
exemplary authority of the OED), it certainly can be so modified.

Brent Davies

unread,
Oct 31, 1991, 11:46:07 PM10/31/91
to
zel...@osgood.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>In article <1991Oct29....@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>
>ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) waxes philosophically on the holy subjects:

>>Personally, I don't care one iota whether a translation reflects modern
>>standards of accuracy. The Hebrew/Greek original has never had any meaning
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>for more than a minute coterie of scholars,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>...and about 40 million Jews, and twice as many Greek speakers. Are you
>really that bigoted, or simply too stupid for words?

Hey, that's a bit rich! Careful, Mikhail--

(a) Most Jews can't read Biblical Hebrew
(b) Most Greeks can't read Koine

=============================
Brent Davies, ACUS Melbourne
700 Blackburn Rd
Clayton North, Victoria
=============================

Mike Godwin

unread,
Nov 1, 1991, 10:40:17 AM11/1/91
to
In article <1991Oct31....@husc3.harvard.edu> zel...@osgood.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>
>A difference may well exist in spite of being too subtle to be noticed by
>Your Denseness. A courtly moralist like Castiglione, an aristocratic one
>like La Rochefoucauld or La Bruy\`ere, a philistine like Lord Chesterfield,
>and even a campy post-modern like Judith Martin, are all concerned with
>manners *as such*, eschewing, for various reasons, any attempts at personal
>attack or censure. Indeed, in a mannered society, any such attempt would
>be considered actionable; on this see the excellent books by V.G.Kiernan
>and Norbert Elias.

"Actionable" in what way? Legally? Certainly not, if the charge
is true (and charges that you are a mannerless boor are invariably
true).

Or do you mean by dueling? Sigh. Everyone knows that you are coward
on this score--pumping yourself up by challenging people in other
countries to duels.

>This is true only if one rather pedantically takes the word in its original
>sense, indicating exact equality or sufficiency; if, however, the word is
>taken in its modern sense, as a synonym of `satisfactory' (approved by the
>exemplary authority of the OED), it certainly can be so modified.

Only a very muddy thinker supposes that one can conflate the meanings
of "adequate" and "satisfactory" without loss to the language. It does
not surprise me to find further confirmation of your status as such.

Now, Mikhail, run along and pretend to read some more Aristotle.

Mark Taranto 36095

unread,
Oct 31, 1991, 10:40:00 AM10/31/91
to
cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)writes:

>At least at Sonoma State University, a literature
>class I took a while back involved reading from the KJV. It was
>sort of disconcerting to realize the level of cultural illiteracy that
>has developed when students had absolutely no concept that the word

>"Psalm" contains a silent "P" -- it's obvious that the liberal goal


>of eliminating all religion from American society has come perilously
>close to succeeding.


When my former SO was a TA for a "KJV as Literature" class at the University
of Minnesota, she had just the opposite problem. She received papers which
started out with phrases like "The Bible is the inspired word of God and
cannot be treated like literature." The class was filled with a number of
students who were "born again" and thought that this would be an easy A.
They were in for a rude awakening.

Similarly, I remember one of my Philosophy professors complaining about
the inability of several self proclaimed socialists, who were taking his
Marx class, to look critically at the texts.


Mark

Hmmm, SO, TA, KJV -- I feel just like Dick Vitale.

INFIDEL

unread,
Nov 1, 1991, 11:18:50 AM11/1/91
to
>Mike Godwin, |"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more
>mnem...@eff.org| imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is
>(617) 864-0665 | the principle of free thought--not free thought for those
>EFF, Cambridge | who agree with us but freedom of thought that we hate."


So, that dog Godwin is waxing lyrical about manners. It comes as no
surprise to read that he is gladly accepting of the social advantage afforded
to him by others, because the social circumstance then offers free reign
for his filthy lies. The only appropriate response to his dishonest
pedantry is to spit in his face. Let him bury himself beneath his own
stinking mound of rhetoric - I wonder whether, "nurturing, faggot-fuck
lawyer-ese gobfuckery", or "two-faced, self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting
cunt-effluent ", is the more adequate description of it.

Don't get your spindly-windly dick in a knot, Hypocritical Scum.


John Wojdylo
Perth
Western Australia


p.s. "Noddy Gets a New Car" is an excellent book.

Robert Firth

unread,
Nov 1, 1991, 12:00:36 PM11/1/91
to

>I particularly object to sections that mistranslate alleged references
>to homosexuality--the word didn't exist in Paul's time, so why put the
>word in a translation?

Rubbish. Paul uses the koine word 'arsenokoitai', which certainly
did exist in his time and does mean (male) homosexuals. I suggest
you read the original text and see for yourself how well, or badly,
the AV translates it.

Mary Ellen Foley

unread,
Nov 1, 1991, 2:47:14 PM11/1/91
to
While on vacation at my parents' house, my husband found a modern paraphrase
in which "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword" was presented
as "All those using swords will be killed".

Talk about losing the poetry!

--
WARNING!! Opinions in posting are farther away than they appear
^^^^^^^^^
Mary Ellen Foley (m...@netcom.com)

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Nov 1, 1991, 4:40:48 PM11/1/91
to
In article <1991Nov1.1...@eff.org>
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1991Oct31....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@osgood.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MZ:


>>A difference may well exist in spite of being too subtle to be noticed by
>>Your Denseness. A courtly moralist like Castiglione, an aristocratic one
>>like La Rochefoucauld or La Bruy\`ere, a philistine like Lord Chesterfield,
>>and even a campy post-modern like Judith Martin, are all concerned with
>>manners *as such*, eschewing, for various reasons, any attempts at personal
>>attack or censure. Indeed, in a mannered society, any such attempt would
>>be considered actionable; on this see the excellent books by V.G.Kiernan
>>and Norbert Elias.

MG:


>"Actionable" in what way? Legally? Certainly not,

Given your scrofulous vocation, it is hardly surprising that you would
think of legal recourse first. Do yourself a favor, and educate yourself
about the subject of this thread before you post any more nonsense.

MG:


> if the charge
>is true (and charges that you are a mannerless boor are invariably
>true).

I agree wholeheartedly that charges that you are a mannerless boor are
invariably true, and offer the following charge by my antipodean friend as
evidence:

In article <1991Nov1.1...@uniwa.uwa.oz.au>
inf...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:

JW:


>So, that dog Godwin is waxing lyrical about manners. It comes as no
>surprise to read that he is gladly accepting of the social advantage afforded
>to him by others, because the social circumstance then offers free reign
>for his filthy lies. The only appropriate response to his dishonest
>pedantry is to spit in his face. Let him bury himself beneath his own
>stinking mound of rhetoric - I wonder whether, "nurturing, faggot-fuck
>lawyer-ese gobfuckery", or "two-faced, self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting
>cunt-effluent ", is the more adequate description of it.

Why wonder? Both seem equally applicable to our litigious little friend...

JW:


>Don't get your spindly-windly dick in a knot, Hypocritical Scum.

Come now, Janek, given little Mikey's preoccupation with distinguishing
himself from the great unwashed masses of ``most men'', it is rather
presumptious of you to assume that he's got one.

>John Wojdylo
>Perth
>Western Australia

MG:


>Or do you mean by dueling? Sigh. Everyone knows that you are coward
>on this score--pumping yourself up by challenging people in other
>countries to duels.

Alas, Mikey dearest, your florid blowhard rhetoric unsurprisingly faileth
to convince. Furthermore, and no doubt to your perpetual chagrin and
consternation, I simply can't feel insulted by any utterance of a lower
life form, such as yourself. However, if you feel jealous, slighted,
stepped on, or otherwise compelled to exercise your putative virile
prerogatives, by all means issue a challenge, which would afford me an
opportunity to choose the time, the place, and the means of our encounter.
Please note that any geographical considerations are quite negligible: if
your extinction is at stake, my overwhelming humanitarian sentiments would
make me free to travel at a moment's notice. Furthermore, the attorney in
you will be happy to know that such gentlemanly diversions are still legal
is the glorious state of Maryland.

Heidi Wolf

unread,
Nov 1, 1991, 4:55:58 PM11/1/91
to

Book recommendation: THE ART OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVE by Robert Alter.
(Came out in hardback 5-10 years ago, I believe.)

Alter dealt exclusively with the Old Testament in this book,
basing his analyses on the original Hebrew texts. His thesis
was that the total vocabulary of words used in the O.T. was
deliberately quite small, and that the author(s) took great care
in their choice of particular words over others with a similar
meaning. He includes a lot of examples. This is the sort of
close analysis more commonly given to poetry; I thought it made
for fascinating (and *not* overly PhD-thesis-ish) reading.


Heidi Wolf

Mike Godwin

unread,
Nov 1, 1991, 6:06:01 PM11/1/91
to
In article <1991Nov1.1...@husc3.harvard.edu> zel...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>Given your scrofulous vocation, it is hardly surprising that you would
>think of legal recourse first. Do yourself a favor, and educate yourself
>about the subject of this thread before you post any more nonsense.

The thought of a self-styled "philosopher" disparaging anyone else's
work is rather charming, if also pathetic.

It is worth pointing out that Mikhail's philosophical bent has led
him to conclude that homosexuality is immoral since homosexual acts
cannot produce children. Since this is also true of most heterosexual
acts (all heterosexual acts, if reliable contraception is used), this
may explain why Mikhail is so unable to get laid that he feels compelled
to seek sex equivalents in spurious challenges.

>Why wonder? Both seem equally applicable to our litigious little friend...

Poor Mikhail. Somebody needs to teach him what "litigious" means. I'd
try, but he's still hung up over "adequate."

>Come now, Janek, given little Mikey's preoccupation with distinguishing
>himself from the great unwashed masses of ``most men'', it is rather
>presumptious of you to assume that he's got one.

Only a very, very poor reader (and Mikhail surely counts as one) could
conclude that anything I've posted in this newsgroup was intended to
distinguish me from most men, unwashed or otherwise.

>Alas, Mikey dearest, your florid blowhard rhetoric unsurprisingly faileth
>to convince. Furthermore, and no doubt to your perpetual chagrin and
>consternation, I simply can't feel insulted by any utterance of a lower
>life form, such as yourself.

Of course you can't. If you felt insulted by anything I posted, you'd
have to challenge me to a duel. And since I actually live in the same
town and could accept your challenge, your cowardice forbids you to be
insulted. It must be hard to disguise such a spineless soul in such a
blustery facade.

Your lengthy justification for your fear of physical confrontation
reminds me a bit of Touchstone's "If" speech. Of course, yours
is much more poorly written. (Note: Ob. books reference in this graf.)

> However, if you feel jealous, slighted,
>stepped on, or otherwise compelled to exercise your putative virile
>prerogatives, by all means issue a challenge, which would afford me an
>opportunity to choose the time, the place, and the means of our encounter.

Me, insulted? Hardly. I'm quite thankful that you give me the opportunity
to spar a bit, although I eagerly await someone with real skill. Roger
Lustig on a bad day could trounce all your postings combined. And even
poor INFIDEL has a certain flair that your constipated prose lacks.

>Furthermore, the attorney in
>you will be happy to know that such gentlemanly diversions are still legal
>is the glorious state of Maryland.

Ah, another manifestation of your pitiable cowardice. Since I'm in the same
town, you'd want me to fight you in Maryland, so that it would take me
a full day, including travel time, to humiliate you rather than the
20 minutes or so it would take me to do it in Cambridge. (I'd add
a few minutes to my lunch hour and polish you off on the walk back
from Legal Seafood.)

My advice to you, Mikhail, is to get laid. If it weren't for the backed-up
semen clogging your brain, you wouldn't feel such an obsessive need to
dwell on pseudo-sexual encounters like duels.

Of course, to get laid you'll have to give up some of your pathetic
notions about sexuality, but you can cross that bridge when you, uh,
come to it.


--mnemonic

Mike Godwin

unread,
Nov 1, 1991, 5:42:34 PM11/1/91
to
>>Mike Godwin, |"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more
>>mnem...@eff.org| imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is
>>(617) 864-0665 | the principle of free thought--not free thought for those
>>EFF, Cambridge | who agree with us but freedom of thought that we hate."

Hi, John. Glad you like my .sig.

>So, that dog Godwin is waxing lyrical about manners. It comes as no
>surprise to read that he is gladly accepting of the social advantage afforded
>to him by others, because the social circumstance then offers free reign
>for his filthy lies. The only appropriate response to his dishonest
>pedantry is to spit in his face. Let him bury himself beneath his own
>stinking mound of rhetoric - I wonder whether, "nurturing, faggot-fuck
>lawyer-ese gobfuckery", or "two-faced, self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting
>cunt-effluent ", is the more adequate description of it.

I knew I would find John worthwhile if I took him out of my killfile.
Most of this is pretty entertaining, but can anyone tell me what he's
referring to when he talks about my "social advantage"?

Is he perhaps referring to my ability to post without references
to "nurturing, faggot-fuck lawyer-ese gobfuckery" or to "two-faced,
self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting cunt-effluent"? If so, I agree
that it's a social advantage.


--Mike

--

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Nov 1, 1991, 8:32:29 PM11/1/91
to
In article <1991Nov1.2...@eff.org>
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1991Nov1.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MZ:


>>Given your scrofulous vocation, it is hardly surprising that you would
>>think of legal recourse first. Do yourself a favor, and educate yourself
>>about the subject of this thread before you post any more nonsense.

MG:


>The thought of a self-styled "philosopher"

A mere student of philosophy, pussycat... nuance!

MG:


> disparaging anyone else's
>work is rather charming, if also pathetic.

Rather grand of you to call anything that might transpire at EFF by the
noble apellation of `work'... especially given that brown-nosing Mitch
Kapor must be a whole lot easier than catering to the legislative body of
the Lone Star State. Still, I shan't try to break your rice bowl, -- you
could be out in the street, trying to serve jaywalking writs to old ladies.

MG:


>It is worth pointing out that Mikhail's philosophical bent has led
>him to conclude that homosexuality is immoral since homosexual acts
>cannot produce children. Since this is also true of most heterosexual
>acts (all heterosexual acts, if reliable contraception is used), this
>may explain why Mikhail is so unable to get laid that he feels compelled
>to seek sex equivalents in spurious challenges.

You are committing a fallacy of arguing from the particular to the general:
just because my organ admittedly hasn't found its way to any of your
gaping, quivering orifices, doesn't entail that it isn't otherwise
occupied. Once again, any challenge I might issue to *you* would ipso
facto be spurious, as you are constitutionally incapable of giving
provocation; still, your insipid efforts could be amusing to the typically
geriatric Borscht Belt audiences, and I encourage you to keep trying to
hone them into something that might pass for English prose.

MZ:


>>Why wonder? Both seem equally applicable to our litigious little friend...

MG:


>Poor Mikhail. Somebody needs to teach him what "litigious" means. I'd
>try, but he's still hung up over "adequate."

`Litigious', as in gutless shyster who would prefer to sue, rather than
fight. Go on, Mikey baby, try to say something really injurious... if your
courtroom skills are adequately represented by your dissipated Internet
banter, it's no wonder you got stuck in such a losing outfit.

MZ:


>>Come now, Janek, given little Mikey's preoccupation with distinguishing
>>himself from the great unwashed masses of ``most men'', it is rather
>>presumptious of you to assume that he's got one.

MG:


>Only a very, very poor reader (and Mikhail surely counts as one) could
>conclude that anything I've posted in this newsgroup was intended to
>distinguish me from most men, unwashed or otherwise.

And so I cite the epicene twit once again:

>In article <1991Oct18.1...@eff.org>
>mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

MG:
>>The thing is, Mikhail, like many males, is uncomfortable with the notion
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>that there may not be a hierarchy.

Perhaps those in the know would enlighten the captivated audience as to the
nature of the gulf which separates our intrepid, yet halfwitted, hero from
the multitudinous masses of normal representatives of his gender.

MZ:


>>Alas, Mikey dearest, your florid blowhard rhetoric unsurprisingly faileth
>>to convince. Furthermore, and no doubt to your perpetual chagrin and
>>consternation, I simply can't feel insulted by any utterance of a lower
>>life form, such as yourself.

MG:


>Of course you can't. If you felt insulted by anything I posted, you'd
>have to challenge me to a duel. And since I actually live in the same
>town and could accept your challenge, your cowardice forbids you to be
>insulted. It must be hard to disguise such a spineless soul in such a
>blustery facade.

Your abductive capacities are repeatedly failing you in a rather
unspectacular fashion. Try the following exercise: while looking in the
mirror, recite to yourself ten different reasons you are unworthy of human
contempt. In a few weeks it will all become quite clear...

MZ:


>> However, if you feel jealous, slighted,
>>stepped on, or otherwise compelled to exercise your putative virile
>>prerogatives, by all means issue a challenge, which would afford me an
>>opportunity to choose the time, the place, and the means of our encounter.

MG:
>Me, insulted? Hardly.

But of course! If you felt insulted by anything I posted, you'd have to do
something about it. And since litigation is the only kind of response
available to you, your professional incompetence forbids you to be
insulted. It's all too easy to demonstrate such utter lack of wit, given
such a dull writing style.

MG:


> I'm quite thankful that you give me the opportunity
>to spar a bit

This is my cue to depart your charming company, my good poof; feel free to
have the last word, and try varying your attack in the future, if you wish
to hold my attention a bit longer.

MG:


>My advice to you, Mikhail, is to get laid.

Your offer is marginally flattering, if underwhelming; unfortunately I am
not available at the moment, and in any case would never fuck any member of
your species, even if it weren't metabolically challenged like you.

Clayton Cramer

unread,
Nov 1, 1991, 6:20:09 PM11/1/91
to
In article <1991Oct31....@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>, ja...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) wrote:
> > it's obvious that the liberal goal of eliminating all religion from
> > American society has come perilously close to succeeding.
>
> Given that the people most of us would think of as exemplifying US
> liberalism would be (born-again) Jimmy Carter, the American Friends
> Service Committee and the Reverend Jesse Jackson, this sounds about
> as much in contact with reality as the generality of Clayton's postings.
>
> -- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank

Actually, Jackson is the only one that "exemplifies" American
liberalism to very many people. (How many years has it been since
the "Rev." Jackson pastored a church? At least 25 years. Oh yes,
the man whose anti-Semitic slurs severely damaged his 1984 Presidential
campaign. Some liberal!)

Most Americans' response to the AFSC is "Who?" Most liberals do their
best to pretend that Jimmy Carter wasn't one of them, to the extent of
calling him the most conservative Democratic President since Grover
Cleveland, or "an unguided missle."

The ACLU and Norman Lear's People for the American Way are better
exemplifications of American liberalism.

Mike Godwin

unread,
Nov 1, 1991, 10:13:45 PM11/1/91
to
In article <1991Nov1.2...@husc3.harvard.edu> zel...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>
>A mere student of philosophy, pussycat... nuance!

A poor student, apparently.

>Rather grand of you to call anything that might transpire at EFF by the
>noble apellation of `work'... especially given that brown-nosing Mitch
>Kapor must be a whole lot easier than catering to the legislative body of
>the Lone Star State. Still, I shan't try to break your rice bowl, -- you
>could be out in the street, trying to serve jaywalking writs to old ladies.

Your comment, Mikhail, reflects the bitterness of a person who's unfit
for a real job.

I can understand why a person of your, uh, "gifts" would be inclined
to hide at a university rather than face the world at large. After all,
too many people out here laugh uproariously at blowhards who tout
their duelling abilities.

By the way, Mikhail--how many duels have you fought? Since you only
challenge people in other countries, it's likely that you haven't
fought at all since that girl in the sixth grade bloodied your nose
in the school yard.

I'm willing to bet you can't produce a shred of evidence that you've
fought a duel, or even challenged someone in the same country.

>You are committing a fallacy of arguing from the particular to the general:
>just because my organ admittedly hasn't found its way to any of your
>gaping, quivering orifices, doesn't entail that it isn't otherwise
>occupied.

Ah, your repressed homosexual longings--expressed, as always, by (1) your
public opposition to homosexuality and (2) your fantasies
of physical intimacy with men who threaten you.

If you could overcome your resistance to your own homosexuality--
expressed as always by these two manifestations--you might free yourself
of the need to talk about your wonderful duelling ability. (The Freudian
significance of the man who obsessively implies skill with gun or
sword is obvious.)

>Once again, any challenge I might issue to *you* would ipso
>facto be spurious, as you are constitutionally incapable of giving
>provocation; still, your insipid efforts could be amusing to the typically
>geriatric Borscht Belt audiences, and I encourage you to keep trying to
>hone them into something that might pass for English prose.

Talk is so cheap, Mikhail. Everyone knows that you dare not challenge
someone who might actually meet you. What's amazing is that you suppose
that anyone believes you when you make excuses about how no one can insult
you.

Just as test: everyone here who thinks Mikhail is *not* afraid of
an actual duel, please send me e-mail or post publicly. I'll report
the findings here. Please copy Zeleny to the letter.

>`Litigious', as in gutless shyster who would prefer to sue, rather than
>fight. Go on, Mikey baby, try to say something really injurious... if your
>courtroom skills are adequately represented by your dissipated Internet
>banter, it's no wonder you got stuck in such a losing outfit.

No wonder you're stuck as a student. You don't know how to do your
research. Can't expect INFIDEL to feed you enough half-remembered gossip
to fudge your way into the pretense of knowledgeability, Mikhail.

>MG:
>>>The thing is, Mikhail, like many males, is uncomfortable with the notion
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>that there may not be a hierarchy.
>
>Perhaps those in the know would enlighten the captivated audience as to the
>nature of the gulf which separates our intrepid, yet halfwitted, hero from
>the multitudinous masses of normal representatives of his gender.

Poor Mikhail. The evidence is right in front of his eyes, and he can't
even read it. Obviously, English is not Mikhail's first language.
Suffice it to say that not one word of the quoted material stands
in support of the argument that I claimed to be "separated" from
"the multitudinous masses."

>Your abductive capacities are repeatedly failing you in a rather
>unspectacular fashion. Try the following exercise: while looking in the
>mirror, recite to yourself ten different reasons you are unworthy of human
>contempt. In a few weeks it will all become quite clear...

Still can't admit it, eh? You never fight anyone. You just pretend
to be a brave duellist. Well, it's a nice fantasy for you, I suppose,
but *every single time you refer to it*, readers of this newsgroup
know you for the cowardly fraud you are.

>But of course! If you felt insulted by anything I posted, you'd have to do
>something about it. And since litigation is the only kind of response
>available to you, your professional incompetence forbids you to be
>insulted. It's all too easy to demonstrate such utter lack of wit, given
>such a dull writing style.

The joke, of course, Mikhail, is that I'm duelling now, with my choice
of weapons, and you're losing. Want evidence? Find someone in this country
(I'm tempted to say "on this planet") who believes you are willing to
fight a duel.

I doubt anyone here supposes you to be anything but a chickenshit
blowhard coward.

>This is my cue to depart your charming company, my good poof; feel free to
>have the last word, and try varying your attack in the future, if you wish
>to hold my attention a bit longer.

Heh. I knew you weren't man enough to take it.

>Your offer is marginally flattering, if underwhelming; unfortunately I am
>not available at the moment, and in any case would never fuck any member of
>your species, even if it weren't metabolically challenged like you.

It is a measure of your own failure to recognize your sexual orientation
that you are willing to interpret so much of what other men write as
a sexual come-on.

Why not come to terms with yourself, Mikhail? It's apparent to any
reasonable person that your noxious, irrational statements about
homosexuality indicate a person deeply uncomfortable with his own
sexual feelings. If you're so inhibited that you can't express yourself
here, perhaps a counselor could help.

I notice that you were too cowardly to repeat your stupid statements
about homosexuality here. This stands as further evidence of your essential
timidity.


--Mike

Andrew Clayton

unread,
Nov 1, 1991, 11:54:22 PM11/1/91
to
Warning: No book content.

In article <1991Nov1.2...@eff.org>, Mike Godwin writes:

> >So, that dog Godwin is waxing lyrical about manners. It comes as no

[The rest of "John goes mad with a drill and sex" deleted]

> I knew I would find John worthwhile if I took him out of my killfile.

[Am I the *only* person to be of the opinion that Mike must
manage a killfile that is slightly smaller than the entire spool
directory of most Internet sites?]

> Most of this is pretty entertaining

I cheered. Especially when Mikhail Zeleny used John's text as a
bludgeon, which he used to smash into your torpid egobloated
persona. (Actually, I cheered twice.)

> but can anyone tell me what he's referring to when he talks
> about my "social advantage"?

"Being dint of being a laywer, Mike Godwin has social advantage."

Replete with clue, I fully expect you to digress, part, sift, and
generally pounce on any perceived quiddity within this missive,
in another attempt to brush off yet-another-hater-of-pedantry.

Perhaps Dan'l can remind us all about your fantabulous quote re
pedant?

There are very few ways to treat lawyers so that they don't find
fault with what you utter; One way is to agree with anything they
say and do, and another is to resort to lawyer-ese, and write
impermeable, invunerable, sentences.

In double-spaced, 40 column lines,

whilst charging exhorbitant fees

for five minute units.


The easiest way is to tell them to fuck off, in latin.

Laywers: Nuke 'em till they glow!

Dac
--
munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac David Andrew Clayton. // _| _ _
prolix!dac%ey...@labtam.oz.au Canberra, Australia \X/ (_](_](_
d...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au I post .
prolix!d...@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au . . I am. +61 6 285 2537

Mark Brader

unread,
Nov 1, 1991, 8:54:04 PM11/1/91
to
Francis Muir (fra...@hanauma.stanford.edu) writes:

> Are there any others who do not understand that I was commenting on the
> posting and not the poster? It is my custom to address text directly, and
> not the person behind it. The poster qua person is of no consequence.

This is, I think, a commendable attitude. In my own postings I try to
emphasize it by *not* citing the name of the person whose text I'm quoting,
unless I'm doing so in praise. (Or unless I have to quote several people
and things would get too confusing otherwise.)

The practice of regularly including an identification line with quoted
text was introduced with the news reader rn, as a default feature of its
F command. I think it was one of the few mistakes in rn, as it seems to
me to have contributed to the level of argumentativeness on the net.
I recommend that people not use it.

The References line is available if the reader wishes to see who posted
the original article, or for that matter to see the quoted material in
its full context.
--
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, m...@sq.com
"The conversation never became heated, which would have been difficult
in any argument where there is a built-in cooling-down period between
any remark and its answer." -- Hal Clement, STAR LIGHT

This article is in the public domain.

INFIDEL

unread,
Nov 2, 1991, 11:11:58 AM11/2/91
to
Mike Godwin writes:

INFIDEL writes:
>>>Mike Godwin, |"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more
>>>mnem...@eff.org| imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is
>>>(617) 864-0665 | the principle of free thought--not free thought for those
>>>EFF, Cambridge | who agree with us but freedom of thought that we hate."

>Hi, John. Glad you like my .sig.

Yes it's nice, really pretty, especially the quote on the right. I'm
sure that if you flash your .sig in the right places, it'll help open many
doors for you. After all, the world's full of suckers that'd trust you, hey
Mike.

Of course, if they fuck you over (the two-faced lying mannerless shits!)
then you can always sue them, and bemoan their lack of grace.


>>So, that dog Godwin is waxing lyrical about manners. It comes as no
>>surprise to read that he is gladly accepting of the social advantage afforded
>>to him by others, because the social circumstance then offers free reign
>>for his filthy lies. The only appropriate response to his dishonest
>>pedantry is to spit in his face. Let him bury himself beneath his own
>>stinking mound of rhetoric - I wonder whether, "nurturing, faggot-fuck
>>lawyer-ese gobfuckery", or "two-faced, self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting
>>cunt-effluent ", is the more adequate description of it.

>I knew I would find John ...

I love it when you call me by my first name, you know. Adds that certain
personal touch. If this continues we'll be snuggling up together in no
time... and then ANYTHING could happen. Mmmmm. But, Michael, y' know, I
have no influential friends and I certainly don't hold any important
positions (although I could make an exception in your case, snugglepot...
but only if you ask REALLY nicely... but then your .sig _is_ OH SO pretty...)
- so don't get too carried away, will you.

(I'm sure you won't - that's right, atta boy, you're thinking the right
thoughts now, I trust.)


>...worthwhile if I took him out of my killfile.
>Most of this is pretty entertaining, ...

... and it contains a error of grammar - but let's not dwell on that...

> ... but can anyone tell me what he's


>referring to when he talks about my "social advantage"?

Now what on earth could I have meant by that ? I really-truly have no idea
myself. Deary me.


>Is he perhaps referring to my ability to post without references
>to "nurturing, faggot-fuck lawyer-ese gobfuckery" or to "two-faced,
>self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting cunt-effluent"?

Now what on earth could Michael have meant by that ? I truly-really have no ideamyself. Deary me.

What an amazing ability you have Michael! Your left hand doesn't know
what your right hand is doing with your spindly windly dick. Of course,
as long as it all remains under the table it's O.K. .


>--Mike

Richard Caley

unread,
Nov 2, 1991, 6:15:50 AM11/2/91
to
In article <1991Nov1.2...@eff.org>, Mike Godwin (mg) writes:

mg> Most of this is pretty entertaining, but can anyone tell me what he's
mg> referring to when he talks about my "social advantage"?

Well, you don't post from Australia, that counts for a lot :-).

--
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<

James Davis Nicoll

unread,
Nov 2, 1991, 11:31:02 AM11/2/91
to
In article <1991Nov1.2...@eff.org> mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>Hi, John. Glad you like my .sig.
>
>>So, that dog Godwin is waxing lyrical about manners. It comes as no
>>surprise to read that he is gladly accepting of the social advantage afforded
>>to him by others, because the social circumstance then offers free reign
>>for his filthy lies. The only appropriate response to his dishonest
>>pedantry is to spit in his face. Let him bury himself beneath his own
>>stinking mound of rhetoric - I wonder whether, "nurturing, faggot-fuck
>>lawyer-ese gobfuckery", or "two-faced, self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting
>>cunt-effluent ", is the more adequate description of it.
>
>I knew I would find John worthwhile if I took him out of my killfile.
>Most of this is pretty entertaining, but can anyone tell me what he's
>referring to when he talks about my "social advantage"?

I think he's refering to your lack of Tourette's, although
he could also be jealous of your articulateness, or education. I
doubt he's referring to you being a Texan, although I hesitate to
guess at what passes through what I am forced to label for lack of
a better word, Infidel's 'mind'.

James Nicoll

Mike Godwin

unread,
Nov 2, 1991, 12:05:23 PM11/2/91
to
In article <1a067d1e...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:
>
>[Am I the *only* person to be of the opinion that Mike must
>manage a killfile that is slightly smaller than the entire spool
>directory of most Internet sites?]

Probably not. But your opinion would be mistaken. I've only put three
people in killfiles during my entire tenure on the Net, and two of
them have since been removed.

A more careful reader than you would have concluded that I'm more likely
to argue with someone disagreeable than to ignore him. Take this posting
for example.

>I cheered. Especially when Mikhail Zeleny used John's text as a
>bludgeon, which he used to smash into your torpid egobloated
>persona. (Actually, I cheered twice.)

Whatever gets you off. At least you're not humiliating yourself
with fraudulent duel challenges.

>"Being dint of being a laywer, Mike Godwin has social advantage."

> [text deleted]


>Laywers: Nuke 'em till they glow!

If only your intellectual wattage were the equal of your intentions.
Sigh. It is perfectly apparent to anyone but you that you have
adduced social *disadvantages* for lawyers, not social advantages.
Your own posting is inconsistent on this.

Someone with a bit more feeling for the zeitgeist can instruct you,
perhaps, on the current social disapproval of lawyers.

Or check out misc.legal or rec.humor for the latest in lawyer jokes.

"A small-town lawyer spent an hour counselling an elderly woman
about the terms of her newly updated will. At the close of the
hour, the woman left, handing the lawyer the agreed-upon fee, a
hundred-dollar bill. After she left, the lawyer looked at the
hundred-dollar bill and noticed that, stuck to that bill, was a
*second* hundred-dollar bill that the woman had unwittingly given.
Immediately, this raised the obvious ethical question in his mind:

"'Do I tell my partner?'"

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Nov 2, 1991, 5:02:02 PM11/2/91
to
Mikey, you lubricious slut,
your prodigious verbal charms
tempt me again and again
to chastise you soundly
with my eloquent malediction:

In article <1991Nov2.0...@eff.org>
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1991Nov1.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MZ:


>>A mere student of philosophy, pussycat... nuance!

MG:
>A poor student, apparently.

Yet in spite of his poverty, fully capable of trouncing a plutocratic shyster.

MZ:


>>Rather grand of you to call anything that might transpire at EFF by the
>>noble apellation of `work'... especially given that brown-nosing Mitch
>>Kapor must be a whole lot easier than catering to the legislative body of
>>the Lone Star State. Still, I shan't try to break your rice bowl, -- you
>>could be out in the street, trying to serve jaywalking writs to old ladies.

MG:


>Your comment, Mikhail, reflects the bitterness of a person who's unfit
>for a real job.

Correct that to `pride', and you've got it, insignificant wage slave.

MG:


>I can understand why a person of your, uh, "gifts" would be inclined
>to hide at a university rather than face the world at large. After all,
>too many people out here laugh uproariously at blowhards who tout
>their duelling abilities.

Not abilities, but readiness to oblige, my good epicene; just as I would be
ready to oblige Your Sliminess on the *champ d'honneur*. Alas, your
understanding of spiritual matters is altogether inadequate to the task of
comprehending the notion of honor, or the utter insignificance of the
opinion of risible *canaille* like yourself.

MG:


>By the way, Mikhail--how many duels have you fought? Since you only
>challenge people in other countries, it's likely that you haven't
>fought at all since that girl in the sixth grade bloodied your nose
>in the school yard.

I take the Fifth, old chap; it may never occur to a slow-witted git like
yourself that such encounters are considered illegal in most jurisdictions.

MG:


>I'm willing to bet you can't produce a shred of evidence that you've
>fought a duel, or even challenged someone in the same country.

You hardly have the means to interest me in producing a shred of anything
for your express benefit; the only way a despicable poltroon like you can
test my resolve is by issuing a challenge; but your yellow liver would
hardly permit that, would it?

MZ:


>>You are committing a fallacy of arguing from the particular to the general:
>>just because my organ admittedly hasn't found its way to any of your
>>gaping, quivering orifices, doesn't entail that it isn't otherwise
>>occupied.

MG:


>Ah, your repressed homosexual longings--expressed, as always, by (1) your
>public opposition to homosexuality and (2) your fantasies
>of physical intimacy with men who threaten you.
>
>If you could overcome your resistance to your own homosexuality--
>expressed as always by these two manifestations--you might free yourself
>of the need to talk about your wonderful duelling ability. (The Freudian
>significance of the man who obsessively implies skill with gun or
>sword is obvious.)

Anything that is obvious to your small mind is ipso facto suspect to anyone
unencumbered by your debilitating reasoning deficiency. The speculations
about my sexuality were initiated by you, so your vulgar pseudo-Freudianism
comes as no surprise to anyone who has been following this thread. Nor are
those projections of sexual inversion unexpected in the light of your
light-footed occupation as a logorrheic mouthpiece for an utterly
purposeless corporate entity.

MZ:


>>Once again, any challenge I might issue to *you* would ipso
>>facto be spurious, as you are constitutionally incapable of giving
>>provocation; still, your insipid efforts could be amusing to the typically
>>geriatric Borscht Belt audiences, and I encourage you to keep trying to
>>hone them into something that might pass for English prose.

MG:


>Talk is so cheap, Mikhail. Everyone knows that you dare not challenge
>someone who might actually meet you. What's amazing is that you suppose
>that anyone believes you when you make excuses about how no one can insult
>you.

You are right: talk is cheap, and so is alluding to alleged common
knowledge. Moreover, you are committing a fallacy of arguing from the
particular to the general once again: just because I refuse to be insulted
by a saponaceous, oleaginous worm like you, doesn't in any way entail that
I can't be insulted by a human being. Moreover, if at any point *you*
should feel insulted by my characterization of what passes for your person,
you can get satisfaction by challenging me; rest assured that I'll oblige
personally, instead of responding in accordance with your station by
sending my lackeys to cane you.

MG:


>Just as test: everyone here who thinks Mikhail is *not* afraid of
>an actual duel, please send me e-mail or post publicly. I'll report
>the findings here. Please copy Zeleny to the letter.

How typical of a representative of your debased tribe to decide moral
issues by a public poll. Are you really so frightened of finding out for
yourself, you running-belly quakebuttock?

MZ:


>>`Litigious', as in gutless shyster who would prefer to sue, rather than
>>fight. Go on, Mikey baby, try to say something really injurious... if your
>>courtroom skills are adequately represented by your dissipated Internet
>>banter, it's no wonder you got stuck in such a losing outfit.

MG:


>No wonder you're stuck as a student. You don't know how to do your
>research. Can't expect INFIDEL to feed you enough half-remembered gossip
>to fudge your way into the pretense of knowledgeability, Mikhail.

I know enough about the EFF; more to the point, I can judge its
effectiveness by your pathetic performance in this exchange.

MG:
>>>>The thing is, Mikhail, like many males, is uncomfortable with the notion
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>that there may not be a hierarchy.

MZ:


>>Perhaps those in the know would enlighten the captivated audience as to the
>>nature of the gulf which separates our intrepid, yet halfwitted, hero from
>>the multitudinous masses of normal representatives of his gender.

MG:


>Poor Mikhail. The evidence is right in front of his eyes, and he can't
>even read it. Obviously, English is not Mikhail's first language.
>Suffice it to say that not one word of the quoted material stands
>in support of the argument that I claimed to be "separated" from
>"the multitudinous masses."

Sure you didn't claim it; in accordance with the deplorable custom of your
parasitic profession, you merely insinuated that you, an enlightened,
``non-hierarchical'' male were somehow different from, nay, superior to,
the boorish masses of chauvinistic, penis-bearing oppressors.

MZ:


>>Your abductive capacities are repeatedly failing you in a rather
>>unspectacular fashion. Try the following exercise: while looking in the
>>mirror, recite to yourself ten different reasons you are unworthy of human
>>contempt. In a few weeks it will all become quite clear...

MG:


>Still can't admit it, eh? You never fight anyone. You just pretend
>to be a brave duellist. Well, it's a nice fantasy for you, I suppose,
>but *every single time you refer to it*, readers of this newsgroup
>know you for the cowardly fraud you are.

Still can't get it, eh? I fight anyone, even pernicious vermin like you;
however I only challenge those I find worthy of such honor; you, most
manifestly, are *not*.

MZ:


>>But of course! If you felt insulted by anything I posted, you'd have to do
>>something about it. And since litigation is the only kind of response
>>available to you, your professional incompetence forbids you to be
>>insulted. It's all too easy to demonstrate such utter lack of wit, given
>>such a dull writing style.

MG:


>The joke, of course, Mikhail, is that I'm duelling now, with my choice
>of weapons, and you're losing. Want evidence? Find someone in this country
>(I'm tempted to say "on this planet") who believes you are willing to
>fight a duel.

The joke, of course, Mikey dearest, is that in your hubristic, ignoble
pretentiousness, all too typical of the members of your malignant brood,
you are forgetful of the difference between *poietike* and *praktike*
(ObBooks: cf. Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea VI.4, 1140a); comfortably
ensconsed in the bogus world of writs and torts, you fail to distinguish
between your own degenerate *flatus vocis*, represented in depressing
variety within this long-suffering newsgroup (as it is undoubtedly
represented in the legal bills of your long-suffering clients) and resolute
action, of which you are repeatedly demonstrating yourself to be incapable.

MG:


>I doubt anyone here supposes you to be anything but a chickenshit
>blowhard coward.

There you go projecting again... a coward, Mikey dearest, is anyone who
would dream of assimilating his pathetically witless verbigeration to noble
combat, thereby implying that his imminent defeat in this exchange is
tantamount to loss of life. Were your obdurate obstreperousness in any way
substantiated by gallant fortitude, you wouldn't have limited its meager
expression to this inconsequential medium; nor would have you wound up as
an inconsequential attorney.

MZ:


>>This is my cue to depart your charming company, my good poof; feel free to
>>have the last word, and try varying your attack in the future, if you wish
>>to hold my attention a bit longer.

MG:


>Heh. I knew you weren't man enough to take it.

I daren't ask what you consider yourself to be man enough to take, you big
sissy.

MZ:


>>Your offer is marginally flattering, if underwhelming; unfortunately I am
>>not available at the moment, and in any case would never fuck any member of
>>your species, even if it weren't metabolically challenged like you.

MG:


>It is a measure of your own failure to recognize your sexual orientation
>that you are willing to interpret so much of what other men write as
>a sexual come-on.

Mikey darling, this is the third time you are committing a fallacy of
arguing from the particular to the general: it's not my interpretation of
other men's writings, but my reading of your own inimitably charmless
screeds, especially your coitous advice to try to get laid (which you all
too conveniently omit), that's being questioned here. Or are you so taken
by the claims of your multiple, yet equally obnoxious personalities, that
you view yourself as ``other men''?

MG:


>Why not come to terms with yourself, Mikhail? It's apparent to any
>reasonable person that your noxious, irrational statements about
>homosexuality indicate a person deeply uncomfortable with his own
>sexual feelings. If you're so inhibited that you can't express yourself
>here, perhaps a counselor could help.

As befits a barrister, you can't abstain from self-promotion. Thanks, but
I am fully capable of expressing and otherwise representing myself.

MG:


>I notice that you were too cowardly to repeat your stupid statements
>about homosexuality here. This stands as further evidence of your essential
>timidity.

A bonus to the readers of this group: it is my considered and rationally
justified belief that homosexual activity is morally wrong.

All flames are directed to alt.sex.

Mike Godwin

unread,
Nov 2, 1991, 6:48:04 PM11/2/91
to
In article <1991Nov2.1...@husc3.harvard.edu> zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>
>Yet in spite of his poverty, fully capable of trouncing a plutocratic shyster.

Ah, this explains much. You lack money, so you resent those whom you
suppose to have some.

>Not abilities, but readiness to oblige, my good epicene; just as I would be
>ready to oblige Your Sliminess on the *champ d'honneur*. Alas, your
>understanding of spiritual matters is altogether inadequate to the task of
>comprehending the notion of honor, or the utter insignificance of the
>opinion of risible *canaille* like yourself.

Nice to see you're improving your handling of multisyllable words.

>I take the Fifth, old chap; it may never occur to a slow-witted git like
>yourself that such encounters are considered illegal in most jurisdictions.

This, of course, is an admission that you've never fought anyone,
anywhere. I notice that no one expresses any belief that you're anything
but a strutting blowhard. Why pretend? The only challenge you've ever
faced is that of your own inferiority complex.

>You hardly have the means to interest me in producing a shred of anything
>for your express benefit; the only way a despicable poltroon like you can
>test my resolve is by issuing a challenge; but your yellow liver would
>hardly permit that, would it?

Still another admission that you've never fought anyone. What a hypocrite
you are to challenge people to duels.

>Anything that is obvious to your small mind is ipso facto suspect to anyone
>unencumbered by your debilitating reasoning deficiency. The speculations
>about my sexuality were initiated by you, so your vulgar pseudo-Freudianism
>comes as no surprise to anyone who has been following this thread.

For once you read correctly. What I posted was precisely "vulgar
pseudo-Freudianism."

>You are right: talk is cheap, and so is alluding to alleged common
>knowledge. Moreover, you are committing a fallacy of arguing from the
>particular to the general once again: just because I refuse to be insulted
>by a saponaceous, oleaginous worm like you, doesn't in any way entail that
>I can't be insulted by a human being.

Actually, the truth is that you can't be insulted by anyone, human or
otherwise, whom you might actually risk meeting. Everyone knows this.
We had some laughs at your expense today at the r.a.b. lunch.

> Moreover, if at any point *you*
>should feel insulted by my characterization of what passes for your person,
>you can get satisfaction by challenging me; rest assured that I'll oblige
>personally, instead of responding in accordance with your station by
>sending my lackeys to cane you.

You can't send "lackeys"--you have none.

>How typical of a representative of your debased tribe to decide moral
>issues by a public poll. Are you really so frightened of finding out for
>yourself, you running-belly quakebuttock?

Ah, but reputation is a function of public opinion. And since you lack any
reputation, except as a loud-mouthed wimp, a poll was the elementary
solution. By the way, no one has posted on your behalf. Not even your
"lackeys."

>Sure you didn't claim it; in accordance with the deplorable custom of your
>parasitic profession, you merely insinuated that you, an enlightened,
>``non-hierarchical'' male were somehow different from, nay, superior to,
>the boorish masses of chauvinistic, penis-bearing oppressors.

Ah, now you admit that the message wasn't in the text--it was merely in
your own silly reading of it. If you had any intellectual honor, you'd
admit your error.

>Still can't get it, eh? I fight anyone, even pernicious vermin like you;
>however I only challenge those I find worthy of such honor; you, most
>manifestly, are *not*.

In other words, you only find people worthy of a challenge if there's no
chance they'll answer it.

>There you go projecting again... a coward, Mikey dearest, is anyone who
>would dream of assimilating his pathetically witless verbigeration to noble
>combat, thereby implying that his imminent defeat in this exchange is
>tantamount to loss of life. Were your obdurate obstreperousness in any way
>substantiated by gallant fortitude, you wouldn't have limited its meager
>expression to this inconsequential medium; nor would have you wound up as
>an inconsequential attorney.

These sentences illustrate the obsessions of a boy who thinks that
word length is a substitute for penis size.

>As befits a barrister, you can't abstain from self-promotion. Thanks, but
>I am fully capable of expressing and otherwise representing myself.

Indeed. You've represented yourself perfectly here.

>A bonus to the readers of this group: it is my considered and rationally
>justified belief that homosexual activity is morally wrong.

Forgive us if we don't accept attempts at moral reasoning from a hypocrite
and coward.

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Nov 2, 1991, 9:13:38 PM11/2/91
to
In article <1991Nov2.2...@eff.org>
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1991Nov2.1...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MG:


>Actually, the truth is that you can't be insulted by anyone, human or
>otherwise, whom you might actually risk meeting. Everyone knows this.

Just you wait, my good nitwit:
I still might react to your pathetic contortions.

MG:


>You can't send "lackeys"--you have none.

If you can participate in a battle of wits, I certainly can send lackeys.

MZ:


>>How typical of a representative of your debased tribe to decide moral
>>issues by a public poll. Are you really so frightened of finding out for
>>yourself, you running-belly quakebuttock?

MG:


>Ah, but reputation is a function of public opinion.

Honor, however, is not;
but I don't expect you to understand or appreciate it.

MZ:


>>Sure you didn't claim it; in accordance with the deplorable custom of your
>>parasitic profession, you merely insinuated that you, an enlightened,
>>``non-hierarchical'' male were somehow different from, nay, superior to,
>>the boorish masses of chauvinistic, penis-bearing oppressors.

MG:


>Ah, now you admit that the message wasn't in the text

I admit nothing of the sort; the message was implicit in the text in a way
evident to anyone endowed with elementary interpretive skills.

MZ:


>>Still can't get it, eh? I fight anyone, even pernicious vermin like you;
>>however I only challenge those I find worthy of such honor; you, most
>>manifestly, are *not*.

MG:


>In other words, you only find people worthy of a challenge if there's no
>chance they'll answer it.

Very well, Godwin, I'll break my rules, while remaining true to yours.
Consider yourself challenged. Choose the weapons (even a cowardly git like
you must realize that they must be deadly weapons, and most emphatically
not that dull wit of yours) and the time and place, with the proviso that
the encounter be legal in the jurisdiction of your choice. (I recommend
Maryland.) Of course, I realize that there is absolutely no chance that
you will answer this challenge; nonetheless, I'll enjoy your pathetic
intellectual contortions in trying to get out of this call. Make your
move, pussycat.

MZ:


>>A bonus to the readers of this group: it is my considered and rationally
>>justified belief that homosexual activity is morally wrong.

MG:


>Forgive us if we don't accept attempts at moral reasoning from a hypocrite
>and coward.

You and your tapeworm are hereby forgiven; what excuse will you bring up to
avoid my challenge, you pusillanimous poltroon?

Mike Godwin

unread,
Nov 2, 1991, 10:23:15 PM11/2/91
to
In article <1991Nov2.2...@husc3.harvard.edu> zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>
>Very well, Godwin, I'll break my rules, while remaining true to yours.
>Consider yourself challenged. Choose the weapons (even a cowardly git like
>you must realize that they must be deadly weapons, and most emphatically
>not that dull wit of yours) and the time and place, with the proviso that
>the encounter be legal in the jurisdiction of your choice. (I recommend
>Maryland.) Of course, I realize that there is absolutely no chance that
>you will answer this challenge; nonetheless, I'll enjoy your pathetic
>intellectual contortions in trying to get out of this call. Make your
>move, pussycat.

The fact that you think you're a smart guy dictates the choices
here:

Choice of jurisdiction: Somerville, Massachusetts. My living
room. Eight p.m., Monday, Nov. 4, 1991. Your second, if you have
one, can reach me for further details at the phone number in my
.signature.

(If you don't have a second, I can find you one.)

Choice of weapons: TRIVIAL PURSUIT at 2 paces. My second in spirit
is Joe Green (thanks, Joe). The card set will be one or more of the
genus editions. If Joe can't make it, I choose Rita Rouvalis.

Humiliation by TRIVIAL PURSUIT is still legal in this jurisdiction.
Best two out of three. The loser must post a statement composed by
the winner to rec.arts.books, soc.couples, soc.men, soc.women, and
alt.flame. Failure to comply with these terms is a sign of lack of
honor, and failure of the loser to honor this agreement will mean
the utter destruction of his public standing (well, of course, that
doesn't mean much for you, but still....).

You are honor-bound not to study the questions beforehand, as
am I.

>You and your tapeworm are hereby forgiven; what excuse will you bring up to
>avoid my challenge, you pusillanimous poltroon?

Oh, but I thought it was obvious that I was hoping you'd challenge
me. I've been trying to get you to do it for days now.

My guess is that you can't risk the certain humiliation of losing
to one of your betters, and that you will find some kind of cowardly
excuse to avoid this confrontation.

Let's see if your brain can keep up with the challenges of your
mouth. If you refuse to engage in this contest, you stand dishonored
before all the world.

INFIDEL

unread,
Nov 3, 1991, 4:53:52 AM11/3/91
to
jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:

>In article <1991Nov1.2...@eff.org> mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>In article <1991Nov1.1...@uniwa.uwa.oz.au> inf...@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:

>>Hi, John. Glad you like my .sig.
>>
>>>So, that dog Godwin is waxing lyrical about manners. It comes as no
>>>surprise to read that he is gladly accepting of the social advantage afforded
>>>to him by others, because the social circumstance then offers free reign
>>>for his filthy lies. The only appropriate response to his dishonest
>>>pedantry is to spit in his face. Let him bury himself beneath his own
>>>stinking mound of rhetoric - I wonder whether, "nurturing, faggot-fuck
>>>lawyer-ese gobfuckery", or "two-faced, self-glorifying, self-fuckfesting
>>>cunt-effluent ", is the more adequate description of it.
>>
>>I knew I would find John worthwhile if I took him out of my killfile.
>>Most of this is pretty entertaining, but can anyone tell me what he's
>>referring to when he talks about my "social advantage"?


>I doubt he's referring to you being a Texan,

Hey James, thanks - I never thought of that. Around here,
calling someone a "Texan" means telling them that they're a
"self-engrossed, pedantic blowhard." Perfect!

But why on earth would such a thing be fitting for Mike Godwin ? Just
dunno. Hmmph.

>although I hesitate to
>guess at what passes through what I am forced to label for lack of
>a better word, Infidel's 'mind'.

"Mind" is the perfect word for it, James. Well done. Glad to see that
with all that AI you're doing you can still relate to the real world.

Don't squint in the bright sunshine, James.

jw

Janet M. Lafler

unread,
Nov 3, 1991, 12:35:49 AM11/3/91
to

As I was desultorily skimming through one of these exchanges, my computer,
by some alchemy, substituted random characters for the next screenful of
the message, thus transforming it into meaningless gibberish.

It seemed peculiarly appropriate.

/Janet

--
send mail to: repn...@leland.stanford.edu
"Well, for my money," said Repnomar, "a mountain of ice is worth two of rock;
for we can make our own toeholds where we want them."
--The Wheel of the Winds, by M.J. Engh

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Nov 3, 1991, 12:27:46 AM11/3/91
to
In article <1991Nov3.0...@eff.org>
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1991Nov2.2...@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zel...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MZ:


>>Very well, Godwin, I'll break my rules, while remaining true to yours.
>>Consider yourself challenged. Choose the weapons (even a cowardly git like
>>you must realize that they must be deadly weapons, and most emphatically
>>not that dull wit of yours) and the time and place, with the proviso that
>>the encounter be legal in the jurisdiction of your choice. (I recommend
>>Maryland.) Of course, I realize that there is absolutely no chance that
>>you will answer this challenge; nonetheless, I'll enjoy your pathetic
>>intellectual contortions in trying to get out of this call. Make your
>>move, pussycat.

MG:


>The fact that you think you're a smart guy dictates the choices
>here:
>
>Choice of jurisdiction: Somerville, Massachusetts. My living
>room. Eight p.m., Monday, Nov. 4, 1991. Your second, if you have
>one, can reach me for further details at the phone number in my
>.signature.
>
>(If you don't have a second, I can find you one.)
>
>Choice of weapons: TRIVIAL PURSUIT at 2 paces. My second in spirit
>is Joe Green (thanks, Joe). The card set will be one or more of the
>genus editions. If Joe can't make it, I choose Rita Rouvalis.
>
>Humiliation by TRIVIAL PURSUIT is still legal in this jurisdiction.
>Best two out of three. The loser must post a statement composed by
>the winner to rec.arts.books, soc.couples, soc.men, soc.women, and
>alt.flame. Failure to comply with these terms is a sign of lack of
>honor, and failure of the loser to honor this agreement will mean
>the utter destruction of his public standing (well, of course, that
>doesn't mean much for you, but still....).
>
>You are honor-bound not to study the questions beforehand, as
>am I.

Evidently, your reading disability has gotten the best of you: both my
challenge, and all extant duelling codes stipulate deadly weapons, which
means that you may choose pistol, rifle, shotgun, bow and arrow, crossbow,
cutlass, rapier, smallsword, broadsword, katana, sword and dagger, sword
and cloak, sword and lantern, pike, spear, or more common items, better
suited to your base character, like cudgel, mallet, chainsaw, hammer, or
screwdriver; moreover the point is to injure, wound, disable, maim, kill,
or exterminate your opponent, rather than humiliate him; indeed, in your
case humiliation is quite superfluous. If you refuse to follow the code,
you thereby proclaim yourself to be a dastardly recreant, a wheyface
milquetoast, a sissy piker, and a true member of the American Bar
Association. Submit to the rules, or forever be known as all of the above;
my guess is that you will find some kind of cowardly excuse to save your
skin, and, in spite of your predictably contorted elucubrations aimed at
proving the contrary, will thereby confirm the obvious conclusions
concerning the craven nature of your character; but before you soil your
Giorgio Armani pants in public, look in the mirror, and think about
Schelling's dictum that a man not prepared to play boldly with his life on
occasion,