The Independent On Sunday backs FairPlay
Glyn
most powerful gay men and women in Britain".
I thought FairPlay was just being a conspiracy nut when he claimed that
his opinions are discredited because "The queers *are* in power.
Geddit?" Obviously, I was wrong on this - there's a huge number of
influential people abusing their positions of power in order to
brainwash us with their Gay Agenda. The top three are Elton John, Ian
McKellen and Peter Mandelson, and the list also includes such
otherwise-respected figures as Matt Lucas (6), Stephen Fry (21) and Boy
George (42). RTD himself appears at number 73.
The introductory article includes this paragraph:
Sandwiched between the old-fashioned music-hall camp of a Graham
Norton and Julian Clary, something much more amusing and inspiring was
taking place. Russell T Davies sent the tabloids into a foaming
lather, nearly a decade ago, with his /Queer as Folk/. Now, in 2005,
he has revived, with wit and verve, /Doctor Who/. Among a series of
admissions about urban life - a black character, a single mother - he
has included, in the figure of Captain Jack, a character gloriously
and unambiguously bisexual, without a tinge of camp. A drama aimed in
part at children, with a sexy bisexual man, and no-one at all seems to
mind. Things have changed a great deal.
Glyn
--
Glyn Kennington - Opinionated elitist and part-time grammar nitpicker
it's: abbreviation for "it is"; its: belonging to it (cf. his, hers)
Plurals don't need apostrophes, except to indicate possession.
Ignis Fatuus
<glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote:
>Today's Independent includes a feature named "The Pink List - The 101
>most powerful gay men and women in Britain".
>
>I thought FairPlay was just being a conspiracy nut when he claimed that
>his opinions are discredited because "The queers *are* in power.
>Geddit?" Obviously, I was wrong on this - there's a huge number of
>influential people abusing their positions of power in order to
>brainwash us with their Gay Agenda. The top three are Elton John, Ian
>McKellen and Peter Mandelson, and the list also includes such
>otherwise-respected figures as Matt Lucas (6), Stephen Fry (21) and Boy
>George (42). RTD himself appears at number 73.
>
>The introductory article includes this paragraph:
>
> Sandwiched between the old-fashioned music-hall camp of a Graham
> Norton and Julian Clary, something much more amusing and inspiring was
> taking place. Russell T Davies sent the tabloids into a foaming
> lather, nearly a decade ago, with his /Queer as Folk/. Now, in 2005,
> he has revived, with wit and verve, /Doctor Who/. Among a series of
> admissions about urban life - a black character, a single mother - he
> has included, in the figure of Captain Jack, a character gloriously
> and unambiguously bisexual, without a tinge of camp. A drama aimed in
> part at children, with a sexy bisexual man, and no-one at all seems to
> mind. Things have changed a great deal.
>
>Glyn
Elton John would be amusing as the Doctor; but Jacksie's resourceful
rectum is a bit sick.
808
>On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:07:22 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho, Glyn
><glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
>
> ... Today's Independent includes a feature named "The Pink List - The 101
> ... most powerful gay men and women in Britain".
> ...
> ... I thought FairPlay was just being a conspiracy nut when he claimed that
> ... his opinions are discredited because "The queers *are* in power.
> ... Geddit?" Obviously, I was wrong on this - there's a huge number of
> ... influential people abusing their positions of power in order to
> ... brainwash us with their Gay Agenda. The top three are Elton John, Ian
> ... McKellen and Peter Mandelson, and the list also includes such
> ... otherwise-respected figures as Matt Lucas (6), Stephen Fry (21) and Boy
> ... George (42). RTD himself appears at number 73.
> ...
> ... The introductory article includes this paragraph:
> ...
> ... Sandwiched between the old-fashioned music-hall camp of a Graham
> ... Norton and Julian Clary, something much more amusing and inspiring was
> ... taking place. Russell T Davies sent the tabloids into a foaming
> ... lather, nearly a decade ago, with his /Queer as Folk/. Now, in 2005,
> ... he has revived, with wit and verve, /Doctor Who/. Among a series of
> ... admissions about urban life - a black character, a single mother
>
>Jackie is a widow, why do they need to call her a "single mother" ?
>
Because she is single and a mother.
> - he
> ... has included, in the figure of Captain Jack, a character gloriously
> ... and unambiguously bisexual, without a tinge of camp. A drama aimed in
> ... part at children, with a sexy bisexual man, and no-one at all seems to
> ... mind. Things have changed a great deal.
>
>Thank heavens...
Glyn
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:07:22 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho, Glyn
> <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
> ... admissions about urban life - a black character, a single mother
>
> Jackie is a widow, why do they need to call her a "single mother" ?
Maybe it was interpreted as a contrast to cultures where widows are
expected to remarry ASAP?
Agamemnon
"Magda >" <<?> wrote in message
news:8qjtb1th9r1duur8e...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:07:22 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho, Glyn
> <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> arranged some electrons, so they
> looked like this :
>
> ... most powerful gay men and women in Britain".
> ...
> ... I thought FairPlay was just being a conspiracy nut when he claimed
> that
> ... his opinions are discredited because "The queers *are* in power.
> ... Geddit?" Obviously, I was wrong on this - there's a huge number of
> ... influential people abusing their positions of power in order to
> ... brainwash us with their Gay Agenda. The top three are Elton John, Ian
> ... McKellen and Peter Mandelson, and the list also includes such
> ... otherwise-respected figures as Matt Lucas (6), Stephen Fry (21) and
> Boy
> ... George (42). RTD himself appears at number 73.
> ...
> ... The introductory article includes this paragraph:
> ...
> ... Sandwiched between the old-fashioned music-hall camp of a Graham
> ... Norton and Julian Clary, something much more amusing and inspiring
> was
> ... taking place. Russell T Davies sent the tabloids into a foaming
> ... lather, nearly a decade ago, with his /Queer as Folk/. Now, in
> 2005,
> ... he has revived, with wit and verve, /Doctor Who/. Among a series of
> ... admissions about urban life - a black character, a single mother
>
> Jackie is a widow, why do they need to call her a "single mother" ?
Its not about her. Its the girl that got pregnant with a kid in WW2 in The
Empty Dances story.
>
> - he
> ... has included, in the figure of Captain Jack, a character gloriously
> ... and unambiguously bisexual, without a tinge of camp. A drama aimed
> in
> ... part at children, with a sexy bisexual man, and no-one at all seems
> to
> ... mind. Things have changed a great deal.
>
> Thank heavens...
>
For what. Morality has gone down the toilet and RTD's corruption of our
youth with unsuitable role models like teenage mothers and slappers is one
reason for it. Eastenders and Coronation Street are another.
And how many kids do you know that are going around the school palyground
pretending to be Captain Jack ? Less than there were pretending to be Mr
Humphreys from Are You Being Served, and nobody ever complained about him
being gay, or about Mrs Slocomb's pussy for that matter.
elmer fudd
"Magda >" <<?> wrote in message
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:31:35 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho, "Agamemnon"
> <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> arranged some electrons, so they looked like
this :
>
> ...
> ... For what. Morality has gone down the toilet and RTD's corruption of
our
> ... youth with unsuitable role models like teenage mothers and slappers
is one
> ... reason for it. Eastenders and Coronation Street are another.
> ...
> ... And how many kids do you know that are going around the school
palyground
> ... pretending to be Captain Jack ? Less than there were pretending to be
Mr
> ... Humphreys from Are You Being Served, and nobody ever complained about
him
> ... being gay, or about Mrs Slocomb's pussy for that matter.
>
> When you are dead all these things won't matter to you, I promise.
>
<awkward mode> if the spirit remains they may continue to matter.
How can you make such a promise unless you are returned from the dead (or
currently dead) yourself? ;-] </awkward mode>
Agamemnon
"Magda >" <<?> wrote in message
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:31:35 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho, "Agamemnon"
> this :
>
> ...
> ... For what. Morality has gone down the toilet and RTD's corruption of
> our
> ... youth with unsuitable role models like teenage mothers and slappers is
> one
> ... reason for it. Eastenders and Coronation Street are another.
> ...
> ... And how many kids do you know that are going around the school
> palyground
> ... pretending to be Captain Jack ? Less than there were pretending to be
> Mr
> ... Humphreys from Are You Being Served, and nobody ever complained about
> him
> ... being gay, or about Mrs Slocomb's pussy for that matter.
>
> When you are dead all these things won't matter to you, I promise.
And you know that from personal experience, having escaped from the realm of
Hades. Obviously no Coronation Street or Eastenders there then. Must be
heaven.
Enzo Matrix
Don't be silly. When you are dead, then you are dead. Unless you are Elvis,
of course... ;-)
--
Enzo
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Glyn
> "Magda >" <<?> wrote in message
> news:8qjtb1th9r1duur8e...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:07:22 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho, Glyn
> > <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> arranged some electrons, so they
> > looked like this :
> > ... mind. Things have changed a great deal.
> >
> > Thank heavens...
>
> For what. Morality has gone down the toilet and RTD's corruption of our
> youth with unsuitable role models like teenage mothers and slappers is one
> reason for it. Eastenders and Coronation Street are another.
Are you claiming that showing a character who had been a teenage mother
was in some way encouraging teenage pregnancy? Did you notice that
the social consequences of her situation were also explored? And are
you still claiming that Jackie was a slapper because she flirted
with the Doctor? She's single and (well) over the age of consent, so
why can't she chat up whomever she likes?
Those scenes arguably involved themes that were a bit adult for a family
show, but they were not in any way advocating the lowering of morality.
Teenage pregnancy and sleeping around were going on before soap
characters started doing it. The soaps (and the more soap-like,
character-based bits of the new DW series) reflect real life - they
don't shape it.
Diane L
>
> And you know that from personal experience, having escaped from the
> realm of Hades. Obviously no Coronation Street or Eastenders there
> then. Must be heaven.
In Hades, the only form of entertainment is soap opera. Australian
soap opera. And you watch it all the time. And you *enjoy* it.
Diane L.
Agamemnon
"Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
news:111980997...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
> Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
>> "Magda >" <<?> wrote in message
>> news:8qjtb1th9r1duur8e...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:07:22 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho, Glyn
>> > <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> arranged some electrons, so they
>> > looked like this :
>> > ... [...] and no-one at all seems to
>> > ... mind. Things have changed a great deal.
>> >
>> > Thank heavens...
>>
>> For what. Morality has gone down the toilet and RTD's corruption of our
>> youth with unsuitable role models like teenage mothers and slappers is
>> one
>> reason for it. Eastenders and Coronation Street are another.
>
> Are you claiming that showing a character who had been a teenage mother
> was in some way encouraging teenage pregnancy? Did you notice that
Yes. It portrays under age sex as being common place. There are kids
watching this.
> the social consequences of her situation were also explored? And are
The situation should never have been covered at all on a kids show.
Without the bloke that did it being condemned and made to pay the price here
and in the afterlife the issue was not settled.
> you still claiming that Jackie was a slapper because she flirted
> with the Doctor? She's single and (well) over the age of consent, so
> why can't she chat up whomever she likes?
She's a slapper because of the WAY she flirted with the Doctor. That kind of
behaviour is a bad example to kids. The way Jabe flirted with the Doctor was
more acceptable.
>
> Those scenes arguably involved themes that were a bit adult for a family
> show, but they were not in any way advocating the lowering of morality.
The were trying to obtain acceptance for moral-free types of behaviour.
> Teenage pregnancy and sleeping around were going on before soap
> characters started doing it. The soaps (and the more soap-like,
> character-based bits of the new DW series) reflect real life - they
> don't shape it.
This is supposed to be a Science-Fiction show not a cheep bloody soap opera.
Drama should NOT reflect real life at all. That is the role of comedy. It's
been 400 years since Shakespeare and British film and TV programme makes
have still not learned this lesson.
>
> Glyn
>
Agamemnon
"Diane L" <di...@lindquist.plus.com> wrote in message
news:42befa89$0$41905$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
You perception of Hades has been created by watching too many of these soap
operas and by you mixing them up with Christianity. Read Aristophanes Frogs
and you will find that Hades is a much nicer place.
>
> Diane L.
>
Enzo Matrix
Acksherly, I *do* enjoy it. Wimbledon is on at the moment, so I am
suffering from severe Neighbours withdrawal symptoms...
The Doctor
Also, URL please!!
--
Member - Liberal International
This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
nk.ca started 1 June 1995
Glyn
> Also, URL please!!
Sorry, I couldn't find it on their website. You'll have to
buy/borrow/steal a physical copy of the paper.
The Bronze
> Drama should NOT reflect real life at all. That is the role of comedy.
Well, maybe comedy is the best way of addressing *your* real life:
although, between you and me, the joke's wearing a bit thin. I was
going to suggest tragedy as an alternative, but with you being so
educated and all, I guess I'll have to aim for greater accuracy and
suggest pantomime.
Glyn
> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> news:111980997...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
> >> youth with unsuitable role models like teenage mothers and slappers is one
> >> reason for it. Eastenders and Coronation Street are another.
> >
> > Are you claiming that showing a character who had been a teenage mother
> > was in some way encouraging teenage pregnancy? Did you notice that
>
> Yes. It portrays under age sex as being common place.
No, it doesn't. It portrays it as happening, but being far from
commonplace. If it were portraying it as commonplace, then Nancy
wouldn't have had to lie to everyone about who the kid's mother really
was - everyone would have just accepted it.
> > the social consequences of her situation were also explored? And are
>
> The situation should never have been covered at all on a kids show.
>
> Without the bloke that did it being condemned and made to pay the price
As there was a war going on, he may very well already be dead - is that
a high enough price to pay for his offence? We don't actually know what
happened to the guy responsible, because we're never told who he is or
why he's no longer with Nancy.
> here and in the afterlife the issue was not settled.
Many sins/crimes/offences/immoral actions have been depicted on TV
shows. Most of these shows try to show that some kind of justice is
done, but do you really expect them all to depict the people responsible
being punished in the afterlife (skipping forwards a few years if
they're not dead yet) of their respective belief systems?
> > you still claiming that Jackie was a slapper because she flirted
> > with the Doctor? She's single and (well) over the age of consent, so
> > why can't she chat up whomever she likes?
>
> She's a slapper because of the WAY she flirted with the Doctor. That kind of
> behaviour is a bad example to kids. The way Jabe flirted with the Doctor was
> more acceptable.
Oh, I agree that Jabe did it a lot better - but Jackie's approach was
based on innuendo, something that we've not minded kids watching for
years. Although fairly obvious, "there's a strange man in my flat -
anything could happen" isn't explicit, and can be easily explained away
to naive kids if the parents really want to hide them from it (more
easily than Jabe's prostitution references, at least).
You may have noticed that Jabe's approach was a lot more successful than
Jackie's - anyone who realised that Jackie was trying to seduce the
Doctor would have then knowingly thought "bloody hell, she's desperate,
I'm better than that". If any impressionable viewers are inspired to go
out on the pull after watching this, they're far more likely to be using
Jabe's moves ;-)
> > Those scenes arguably involved themes that were a bit adult for a family
> > show, but they were not in any way advocating the lowering of morality.
>
> The were trying to obtain acceptance for moral-free types of behaviour.
For what value of "obtain acceptance"? Accepting that it sometimes
happens, yes. But the show wasn't claiming that it was in any way a
good idea - quite the opposite.
> > Teenage pregnancy and sleeping around were going on before soap
> > characters started doing it. The soaps (and the more soap-like,
> > character-based bits of the new DW series) reflect real life - they
> > don't shape it.
>
> This is supposed to be a Science-Fiction show not a cheep bloody soap opera.
Just because it's scifi doesn't mean it can't include character
development. You may not personally like it (I think it drags at times)
but a lot of the target audience seems happy with it.
> Drama should NOT reflect real life at all. That is the role of comedy. It's
> been 400 years since Shakespeare and British film and TV programme makes
> have still not learned this lesson.
So you don't suppose that at some point over this 400 year period,
people have considered the alternatives and decided that including
realistic characters and situations (to which the audience can relate)
actually makes for more watchable, more believable drama?
Agamemnon
"The Bronze" <steve...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1119826517....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Pantomime was already tried by John Nathan Turner.
The Bronze
I guess that 'education' is wearing a bit thin....
pbo...@aol.com
>
>
>news:111980997...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>
>
>
>- Hide quoted text -
>- Show quoted text -
>
>> Agamemnon <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> >announced:
>>> "Magda >" <<?> wrote in message
>>> news:8qjtb1th9r1duur8e...@4ax.com...
>>> > On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:07:22 +0100, in >rec.arts.drwho, Glyn
>>> > looked like this :
>>> > ... [...] and no-one at all seems to
>>> > ... mind. Things have changed a great deal.
>
>>> > Thank heavens...
>>
>>
>> For what. Morality has gone down the toilet and RTD's >>corruption of our
>> > youth with unsuitable role models like teenage mothers and slappers is
>>> one
>>> reason for it.
So you're saying that morality has only "gone down the toilet" in,
what, the past four months?
>> Are you claiming that showing a character who had been >a teenage mother
>> was in some way encouraging teenage pregnancy? Did >you notice that
>
>
>
>Yes. It portrays under age sex as being common place. >There are kids
>watching this.
Which, reading on, I'd take to be the point - or are you suggesting
that the best way to educate kids about the dangers of such things as
teenage pregnancy is to shelter them from the fact that it exists
rather than educating them about its consequences?
>> the social consequences of her situation were also >explored? And are
>
>
>The situation should never have been covered at all on a >kids show.
So how should potential teen parents be introduced to the issue? It's
hardly as though adults need a morality play about the evils of teen
pregnancies.
>> you still claiming that Jackie was a slapper because she >flirted
>> with the Doctor? She's single and (well) over the age of >consent, so
>> why can't she chat up whomever she likes?
>
>
>She's a slapper because of the WAY she flirted with the >Doctor. That kind of
>behaviour is a bad example to kids.
Agreed, it is - but it would hardly suit her character's background to
wine and dine him, now would it? I'm not sure where you're getting the
idea that Jackie is *supposed* to be a role model - from what I've seen
of the series so far she's portrayed as a menial stay-at-home
frequently complaining about the mess her life is in. If I were a kid
watching the show I'd probably take away the message that Jackie's
example is a good one not to follow. The simple fact that a character
has a significant role in a TV show doesn't necessarily give them the
status of a role model, any more than a Dalek or a Slitheen is a role
model.
>> Teenage pregnancy and sleeping around were going on ?>before soap
>> characters started doing it. The soaps (and the more >soap-like,
>> character-based bits of the new DW series) reflect real ?>life - they
>> don't shape it.
>
>
>This is supposed to be a Science-Fiction show
I'll resist the urge to point out again that Dr. Who is more fantasy
than sci-fi - I ended up in an interminable debate on the subject in
another group.
>Drama should NOT reflect real life at all.
Where on Earth does this idea come from? What should the purpose of
drama be, then? It reflects real life for the characters to live in a
house - should they dispense with that?
Philip Bowles
Agamemnon
> Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
>> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
>> news:111980997...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
>> >> For what. Morality has gone down the toilet and RTD's corruption of
>> >> our
>> >> youth with unsuitable role models like teenage mothers and slappers
>> >> is one
>> >> reason for it. Eastenders and Coronation Street are another.
>> >
>> > Are you claiming that showing a character who had been a teenage mother
>> > was in some way encouraging teenage pregnancy? Did you notice that
>>
>> Yes. It portrays under age sex as being common place.
>
> No, it doesn't. It portrays it as happening, but being far from
> commonplace. If it were portraying it as commonplace, then Nancy
Nope. The fact that's its on and is condoned is portraying it as commonplace
and acceptable.
> wouldn't have had to lie to everyone about who the kid's mother really
> was - everyone would have just accepted it.
The reason she had to lie is because she was a kid. This encouraging kids to
have sex and lie about it so they can get way with it.
>
>> > the social consequences of her situation were also explored? And are
>>
>> The situation should never have been covered at all on a kids show.
>>
>> Without the bloke that did it being condemned and made to pay the price
>
> As there was a war going on, he may very well already be dead - is that
> a high enough price to pay for his offence? We don't actually know what
> happened to the guy responsible, because we're never told who he is or
> why he's no longer with Nancy.
>
>> here and in the afterlife the issue was not settled.
>
> Many sins/crimes/offences/immoral actions have been depicted on TV
> shows. Most of these shows try to show that some kind of justice is
> done, but do you really expect them all to depict the people responsible
> being punished in the afterlife (skipping forwards a few years if
> they're not dead yet) of their respective belief systems?
They have to show the punishment in the afterlife in order to exaggerate the
situation and distinguish it from the desired ideal of everyday life.
When Issac's young daughter is raped by a prince from a neighbouring tribe
the entire tribe a punished and slaughtered even after the prince offers to
marry her.
>
>> > you still claiming that Jackie was a slapper because she flirted
>> > with the Doctor? She's single and (well) over the age of consent, so
>> > why can't she chat up whomever she likes?
>>
>> She's a slapper because of the WAY she flirted with the Doctor. That
>> kind of
>> behaviour is a bad example to kids. The way Jabe flirted with the Doctor
>> was
>> more acceptable.
>
> Oh, I agree that Jabe did it a lot better - but Jackie's approach was
> based on innuendo, something that we've not minded kids watching for
> years. Although fairly obvious, "there's a strange man in my flat -
> anything could happen" isn't explicit, and can be easily explained away
> to naive kids if the parents really want to hide them from it (more
Explained away... explained away..... It can't be explained away. Once its
heard the kids will copy it and chant it in the school playground.
> easily than Jabe's prostitution references, at least).
And that's another thing that should never have been allowed. Instead of
censoring that they censored Captain Jack's arse which was not offensive to
anyone.
>
> You may have noticed that Jabe's approach was a lot more successful than
> Jackie's - anyone who realised that Jackie was trying to seduce the
> Doctor would have then knowingly thought "bloody hell, she's desperate,
> I'm better than that". If any impressionable viewers are inspired to go
> out on the pull after watching this, they're far more likely to be using
> Jabe's moves ;-)
They should not have even been exposed to the situation of pulling in the
first place. Jackie's approach was that of a common slut and easily copied
by children in the school playground who would think it normal to behave
that way. Jabes approach was more sophisticated and a more acceptable way to
behave.
>
>> > Those scenes arguably involved themes that were a bit adult for a
>> > family
>> > show, but they were not in any way advocating the lowering of morality.
>>
>> The were trying to obtain acceptance for moral-free types of behaviour.
>
> For what value of "obtain acceptance"? Accepting that it sometimes
> happens, yes. But the show wasn't claiming that it was in any way a
> good idea - quite the opposite.
Nope. The show was giving bad examples to people on how they should behave
without questioning them properly, and since kids are the viewers they would
not have been able to understand the questioning anyway if they had been
questioned, so would have picked up the bad examples of behaving and copied
them. These issues therefore should never have been covered except in bible
class or mythology where the would not be regarded as part of everyday life
but as the bad way in which our ancestors used to behave before they became
civilised.
>
>> > Teenage pregnancy and sleeping around were going on before soap
>> > characters started doing it. The soaps (and the more soap-like,
>> > character-based bits of the new DW series) reflect real life - they
>> > don't shape it.
>>
>> This is supposed to be a Science-Fiction show not a cheep bloody soap
>> opera.
>
> Just because it's scifi doesn't mean it can't include character
> development. You may not personally like it (I think it drags at times)
Err.... It was not character development. It was filler.
> but a lot of the target audience seems happy with it.
>
That has not been proven.
>> Drama should NOT reflect real life at all. That is the role of comedy.
>> It's
>> been 400 years since Shakespeare and British film and TV programme makes
>> have still not learned this lesson.
>
> So you don't suppose that at some point over this 400 year period,
> people have considered the alternatives and decided that including
> realistic characters and situations (to which the audience can relate)
> actually makes for more watchable, more believable drama?
Except it doesn't and they don't and it isn't and they're not !
If you want realistic situations and characters then you only have to look
in the street.
Drama is for Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Real life is
for.Big Brother.
The Doctor
Glyn <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote:
>The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> announced:
>> Also, URL please!!
>
>Sorry, I couldn't find it on their website. You'll have to
>buy/borrow/steal a physical copy of the paper.
>
I maybe able to get that later this week.
pbo...@aol.com
Agamemnon wrote:
> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> news:111982728...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
> >> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> >> news:111980997...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
> >> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
> >> >> For what. Morality has gone down the toilet and RTD's corruption of
> >> >> our
> >> >> youth with unsuitable role models like teenage mothers and slappers
> >> >> is one
> >> >> reason for it. Eastenders and Coronation Street are another.
> >> >
> >> > Are you claiming that showing a character who had been a teenage mother
> >> > was in some way encouraging teenage pregnancy? Did you notice that
> >>
> >> Yes. It portrays under age sex as being common place.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. It portrays it as happening, but being far from
> > commonplace. If it were portraying it as commonplace, then Nancy
>
> Nope. The fact that's its on and is condoned is portraying it as commonplace
> and acceptable.
This is one character out of the entire cast of this year's Dr. Who
(including all the extras populating London and Cardiff), right? You're
seriously saying that makes it commonplace. You might as well say that
because a couple of the characters travel through time between
episodes, time travel is commonplace.
> > wouldn't have had to lie to everyone about who the kid's mother really
> > was - everyone would have just accepted it.
>
> The reason she had to lie is because she was a kid.
Which is exactly the point being made - because if she'd told the truth
about a kid getting pregnant, that wouldn't have been accepted.
This encouraging kids to
> have sex and lie about it so they can get way with it.
There's no way of getting past your logic, is there? If something you
disagree with is portrayed in a favourable light it's acceptable and so
should be shouted down. If, on the other hand, it's portrayed as being
unacceptable, then in fact what the producers are doing is encouraging
not only the action itself but also any further actions aimed at
covering it up. You don't see the tiniest little inconsistency there,
do you?
>> >> here and in the afterlife the issue was not settled.
>> >
>> > Many sins/crimes/offences/immoral actions have been depicted on TV
>> > shows. Most of these shows try to show that some kind of justice is
>> > done, but do you really expect them all to depict the people responsible
>> > being punished in the afterlife (skipping forwards a few years if
>> > they're not dead yet) of their respective belief systems?
>>
>> They have to show the punishment in the afterlife in order to exaggerate the
>> situation and distinguish it from the desired ideal of everyday life.
>>
>> When Issac's young daughter is raped by a prince from a neighbouring tribe
>> the entire tribe a punished and slaughtered even after the prince offers to
>> marry her.
Ah, the wonderful child-friendly message that when wronged they should
exact bloody revenge and indeed commit genocide. Has it occurred to you
that Dr Who is not actually an Old Testament parable? Or indeed that it
is and should remain a secular TV show?
> > Oh, I agree that Jabe did it a lot better - but Jackie's approach was
> > based on innuendo, something that we've not minded kids watching for
> > years. Although fairly obvious, "there's a strange man in my flat -
> > anything could happen" isn't explicit, and can be easily explained away
> > to naive kids if the parents really want to hide them from it (more
>
> Explained away... explained away..... It can't be explained away. Once its
> heard the kids will copy it and chant it in the school playground.
If true (which is highly unlikely - by all accounts kids are far more
interested in pretending to be Daleks or Slitheen than a single mother
from a housing estate; funny, that), how does parroted repetition of a
phrase they don't understand constitute corruption?
> > You may have noticed that Jabe's approach was a lot more successful than
> > Jackie's - anyone who realised that Jackie was trying to seduce the
> > Doctor would have then knowingly thought "bloody hell, she's desperate,
> > I'm better than that". If any impressionable viewers are inspired to go
> > out on the pull after watching this, they're far more likely to be using
> > Jabe's moves ;-)
>
> They should not have even been exposed to the situation of pulling in the
> first place. Jackie's approach was that of a common slut and easily copied
> by children in the school playground who would think it normal to behave
> that way. Jabes approach was more sophisticated and a more acceptable way to
> behave.
Jabe's character was intended to be more sophisticated than Jackie's,
so what do you expect?
> >
> >> > Those scenes arguably involved themes that were a bit adult for a
> >> > family
> >> > show, but they were not in any way advocating the lowering of morality.
> >>
> >> The were trying to obtain acceptance for moral-free types of behaviour.
> >
> > For what value of "obtain acceptance"? Accepting that it sometimes
> > happens, yes. But the show wasn't claiming that it was in any way a
> > good idea - quite the opposite.
>
> Nope. The show was giving bad examples to people on how they should behave
> without questioning them properly, and since kids are the viewers they would
> not have been able to understand the questioning anyway if they had been
> questioned, so would have picked up the bad examples of behaving and copied
> them. These issues therefore should never have been covered except in bible
> class or mythology where the would not be regarded as part of everyday life
> but as the bad way in which our ancestors used to behave before they became
> civilised.
Which will do a lot to prepare them for life in the real world, no
doubt...
> > but a lot of the target audience seems happy with it.
> >
>
> That has not been proven.
What constitutes proof if not consistently high ratings? If parents
were inclined to stop kids watching after a few questionable
references, they'd have dropped dramatically after the first couple of
episodes.
> If you want realistic situations and characters then you only have to look
> in the street.
So, instead of watching something like Dr. Who kids should be
introduced to the local drug-pushers, prostitutes and bums of their
neighbourhood?
> Drama is for Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Real life is
> for.Big Brother.
If you're seriously suggesting Big Brother has any connection at all to
real life, I'm guessing you don't spend much time in the real world.
Philip Bowles
808
>On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:22:25 GMT, in rec.arts.drwho, 808 <non...@nospam.com> arranged some
>electrons, so they looked like this :
>
> ... On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:55:12 +0200, Magda <<?>> wrote:
> ...
> ... >On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:07:22 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho, Glyn
> ... ><glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
> ... >
> ... > ... Today's Independent includes a feature named "The Pink List - The 101
> ... > ... most powerful gay men and women in Britain".
> ... > ...
> ... > ... I thought FairPlay was just being a conspiracy nut when he claimed that
> ... > ... his opinions are discredited because "The queers *are* in power.
> ... > ... Geddit?" Obviously, I was wrong on this - there's a huge number of
> ... > ... influential people abusing their positions of power in order to
> ... > ... brainwash us with their Gay Agenda. The top three are Elton John, Ian
> ... > ... McKellen and Peter Mandelson, and the list also includes such
> ... > ... otherwise-respected figures as Matt Lucas (6), Stephen Fry (21) and Boy
> ... > ... George (42). RTD himself appears at number 73.
> ... > ...
> ... > ... The introductory article includes this paragraph:
> ... > ...
> ... > ... Sandwiched between the old-fashioned music-hall camp of a Graham
> ... > ... Norton and Julian Clary, something much more amusing and inspiring was
> ... > ... taking place. Russell T Davies sent the tabloids into a foaming
> ... > ... lather, nearly a decade ago, with his /Queer as Folk/. Now, in 2005,
> ... > ... he has revived, with wit and verve, /Doctor Who/. Among a series of
> ... > ... admissions about urban life - a black character, a single mother
> ... >
> ... >Jackie is a widow, why do they need to call her a "single mother" ?
> ... >
> ...
> ... Because she is single and a mother.
>
>She was married, her husband died, and now she is "single" ?
Pretty much. She is a widow therefore she is single.
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119840371.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This is one character that is being made an example of and which 2 episodes
are based around.
> seriously saying that makes it commonplace. You might as well say that
Yes. It portrays it as common place and acceptable behaviour by cantering a
story around it.
> because a couple of the characters travel through time between
> episodes, time travel is commonplace.
No. Time travel is not part of everyday life. Having kids is therefore
unsuitable role modes should not be used.
>
>> > wouldn't have had to lie to everyone about who the kid's mother really
>> > was - everyone would have just accepted it.
>>
>> The reason she had to lie is because she was a kid.
>
> Which is exactly the point being made - because if she'd told the truth
> about a kid getting pregnant, that wouldn't have been accepted.
If she told the truth the kids watching would see it as the adults spoiling
her fun because they didn't have any of their own, and they would rebel
against the adults and against morality, which is why this subject matter
should never have been included..
>
> This encouraging kids to
>> have sex and lie about it so they can get way with it.
>
> There's no way of getting past your logic, is there? If something you
> disagree with is portrayed in a favourable light it's acceptable and so
> should be shouted down. If, on the other hand, it's portrayed as being
> unacceptable, then in fact what the producers are doing is encouraging
> not only the action itself but also any further actions aimed at
> covering it up. You don't see the tiniest little inconsistency there,
> do you?
There is nothing inconsistent there. These types of issues should not be
covered in a kids sci-fi show. Let the parents educate their own kids
properly in their own time not TV. Child sex would not be an issue to these
kids if it had not been brought up. Bringing up such disgusting behaviour as
a subject of a kids show has only one effect and this is to render it
acceptable because the only thing the kids will understand is that is was
shown on TV, so everyone else must be doing it, behind their parents backs..
>
>>> >> here and in the afterlife the issue was not settled.
>>> >
>>> > Many sins/crimes/offences/immoral actions have been depicted on TV
>>> > shows. Most of these shows try to show that some kind of justice is
>>> > done, but do you really expect them all to depict the people
>>> > responsible
>>> > being punished in the afterlife (skipping forwards a few years if
>>> > they're not dead yet) of their respective belief systems?
>>>
>>> They have to show the punishment in the afterlife in order to exaggerate
>>> the
>>> situation and distinguish it from the desired ideal of everyday life.
>>>
>>> When Issac's young daughter is raped by a prince from a neighbouring
>>> tribe
>>> the entire tribe a punished and slaughtered even after the prince offers
>>> to
>>> marry her.
>
> Ah, the wonderful child-friendly message that when wronged they should
> exact bloody revenge and indeed commit genocide. Has it occurred to you
Oh you mean like Rose did on the Daleks. Well, you could say she was only
following the earlier example of the Doctor, or examples if you remember the
dissuasion about Cassandra.
> that Dr Who is not actually an Old Testament parable? Or indeed that it
Actually it has exactly the same purpose as the bible.
> is and should remain a secular TV show?
Secular ? Since when has devoting an entire episode to the creation, worship
and downfall of a false Dalek God been secular.
>
>> > Oh, I agree that Jabe did it a lot better - but Jackie's approach was
>> > based on innuendo, something that we've not minded kids watching for
>> > years. Although fairly obvious, "there's a strange man in my flat -
>> > anything could happen" isn't explicit, and can be easily explained away
>> > to naive kids if the parents really want to hide them from it (more
>>
>> Explained away... explained away..... It can't be explained away. Once
>> its
>> heard the kids will copy it and chant it in the school playground.
>
> If true (which is highly unlikely - by all accounts kids are far more
> interested in pretending to be Daleks or Slitheen than a single mother
> from a housing estate; funny, that), how does parroted repetition of a
> phrase they don't understand constitute corruption?
When the little girls repeat this line in the school playground they will
think of it as the first thing to say to an older boy who will be encouraged
to treat them as the slapper they sound like. My 11 year old nephew realised
that Rose's mother was a slapper not from just that line alone but also from
her behaviour and actions, and told me so, so any 11 year old boy being
approached by a younger immature girl in that manner will think her to be
exactly that what she looks and sounds like. This might be harmless in most
cases where the boy has been educated in morality but what about if the boy
is from an immoral social background and is 14 or 15 and takes this as a cue
that a 13 year immature old girl is asking for it ?
>
>> > You may have noticed that Jabe's approach was a lot more successful
>> > than
>> > Jackie's - anyone who realised that Jackie was trying to seduce the
>> > Doctor would have then knowingly thought "bloody hell, she's desperate,
>> > I'm better than that". If any impressionable viewers are inspired to
>> > go
>> > out on the pull after watching this, they're far more likely to be
>> > using
>> > Jabe's moves ;-)
>>
>> They should not have even been exposed to the situation of pulling in the
>> first place. Jackie's approach was that of a common slut and easily
>> copied
>> by children in the school playground who would think it normal to behave
>> that way. Jabes approach was more sophisticated and a more acceptable way
>> to
>> behave.
>
> Jabe's character was intended to be more sophisticated than Jackie's,
> so what do you expect?
Jabe's character was looking for a relationship. Jackie Tyler was looking
for a quick screw.
Its the way in which people became civilised.
>
>> > but a lot of the target audience seems happy with it.
>> >
>>
>> That has not been proven.
>
> What constitutes proof if not consistently high ratings? If parents
People are watching it because its mostly science-fiction. They are not
necessarily happed with every part of it as the articles in the Independent
and the Sun show.
> were inclined to stop kids watching after a few questionable
> references, they'd have dropped dramatically after the first couple of
> episodes.
>
>> If you want realistic situations and characters then you only have to
>> look
>> in the street.
>
> So, instead of watching something like Dr. Who kids should be
> introduced to the local drug-pushers, prostitutes and bums of their
> neighbourhood?
How about a morality tale. Daleks are analogous to drug-pushers, prostitutes
and bums and they all get wiped out.
>
>> Drama is for Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Real life
>> is
>> for.Big Brother.
>
> If you're seriously suggesting Big Brother has any connection at all to
> real life, I'm guessing you don't spend much time in the real world.
You've obviously been watching too many badly written soaps and haven been
to the pub, or club or work canteen if you think that.
>
> Philip Bowles
>
pbo...@aol.com
Hardly a good example based on the state her character is in.
> > seriously saying that makes it commonplace. You might as well say that
>
> Yes. It portrays it as common place and acceptable behaviour by cantering a
> story around it.
For your benefit, the definition of "common" is "abundant", "frequent"
or any of a number of other synonyms, which do not include "the focus
of a story". Stories are often set around unusual behaviour for
precisely that reason - what sort of story can you base around the idea
of someone having a child at an 'appropriate' age? As for whether or
not it's acceptable, that depends wholly on the context of the story. A
Star Trek episode called "Business as Usual" focused heavily on arms
trading and the consequences it has for people drawn into conflicts as
a result, and it definitely did not imply acceptance of money-grubbing
arms dealers.
> > because a couple of the characters travel through time between
> > episodes, time travel is commonplace.
>
> No. Time travel is not part of everyday life. Having kids is therefore
> unsuitable role modes should not be used.
You still haven't given any reason for thinking that Jackie is likely
to be taken as, or is intended as, a role model for anyone - any kid
who aspires to Jackie's life of drudgery and regret has severe problems
already.
> >
> >> > wouldn't have had to lie to everyone about who the kid's mother really
> >> > was - everyone would have just accepted it.
> >>
> >> The reason she had to lie is because she was a kid.
> >
> > Which is exactly the point being made - because if she'd told the truth
> > about a kid getting pregnant, that wouldn't have been accepted.
>
> If she told the truth the kids watching would see it as the adults spoiling
> her fun because they didn't have any of their own,
So one way or another, however it's presented, there's a contrived way
of objecting to it. This is the principle known as Crabtree's bludgeon
- that there is no set of facts, however inconsistent, that can't be
explained by some form of spurious argument.
> > This encouraging kids to
> >> have sex and lie about it so they can get way with it.
> >
> > There's no way of getting past your logic, is there? If something you
> > disagree with is portrayed in a favourable light it's acceptable and so
> > should be shouted down. If, on the other hand, it's portrayed as being
> > unacceptable, then in fact what the producers are doing is encouraging
> > not only the action itself but also any further actions aimed at
> > covering it up. You don't see the tiniest little inconsistency there,
> > do you?
>
> There is nothing inconsistent there. These types of issues should not be
> covered in a kids sci-fi show.
So any way in which they are covered, in however negative a light,
necessarily constitutes encouragement? Your world really is black and
white, isn't it?
Let the parents educate their own kids
> properly in their own time not TV.
And if they aren't inclined to/aren't able to/aren't listened to or
simply don't have a well-developed sense of morality themselves?
Parents' admonitions have been remarkably ineffective at preventing
delinquent behaviour - given the choice between warning a child about
drug use, say, by getting the parents to 'educate' them or showing them
a film like "Ray", I'd put more faith in the film having a positive
effect. The key here is that, when a kid is told not to do something by
the parents, that's all the parents are doing - they aren't doing
anything to make the child think or giving them any incentive to pay
attention. When moral issues form part of a wider story (be it fiction
like Star Trek or Dr Who or a true story like Ray Charles') and are
presented in a way that isn't judgmental, the child learns to think for
itself based on the information it is given and to make its own moral
judgments, and it keeps watching because it likes the story, taking in
the ethical points subliminally - like your nephew you describe below.
To continue with my example, "Ray" isn't played in any way as an
anti-drugs movie - Charles' history of drug use is prominent in the
narrative, but the film simply presents the bald facts about his habit,
its causes, his eventual recovery and the effect it had on his life,
and anyone watching can make up their own mind (though anyone who would
want to take drugs after seeing it is likely insane).
Child sex would not be an issue to these
> kids if it had not been brought up. Bringing up such disgusting behaviour as
> a subject of a kids show has only one effect and this is to render it
> acceptable because the only thing the kids will understand is that is was
> shown on TV, so everyone else must be doing it, behind their parents backs..
> > that Dr Who is not actually an Old Testament parable? Or indeed that it
>
> Actually it has exactly the same purpose as the bible.
>
> > is and should remain a secular TV show?
>
> Secular ? Since when has devoting an entire episode to the creation, worship
> and downfall of a false Dalek God been secular.
You do realise there's a difference between portraying religion and
being religious in nature, I suppose? I haven't seen the episode
myself, but the Emperor is apparently portrayed as a god and, as you
say, its downfall shown - that's hardly a message to inspire believers.
Philip Pullman made an entire series of books based on the idea of
destroying God - they can hardly be called religious either.
> >
> >> > Oh, I agree that Jabe did it a lot better - but Jackie's approach was
> >> > based on innuendo, something that we've not minded kids watching for
> >> > years. Although fairly obvious, "there's a strange man in my flat -
> >> > anything could happen" isn't explicit, and can be easily explained away
> >> > to naive kids if the parents really want to hide them from it (more
> >>
> >> Explained away... explained away..... It can't be explained away. Once
> >> its
> >> heard the kids will copy it and chant it in the school playground.
> >
> > If true (which is highly unlikely - by all accounts kids are far more
> > interested in pretending to be Daleks or Slitheen than a single mother
> > from a housing estate; funny, that), how does parroted repetition of a
> > phrase they don't understand constitute corruption?
>
> When the little girls repeat this line in the school playground they will
> think of it as the first thing to say to an older boy who will be encouraged
> to treat them as the slapper they sound like. My 11 year old nephew realised
> that Rose's mother was a slapper not from just that line alone but also from
> her behaviour and actions, and told me so, so any 11 year old boy being
> approached by a younger immature girl in that manner will think her to be
> exactly that what she looks and sounds like. This might be harmless in most
> cases where the boy has been educated in morality but what about if the boy
> is from an immoral social background and is 14 or 15 and takes this as a cue
> that a 13 year immature old girl is asking for it ?
You've spent a lot of time thinking up contrived situations over this,
haven't you? Do you even have any anecdotal evidence that this might
have happened as a result of comments like this in programmes kids
watch (Dr. Who or otherwise), or that any girls are looking to Jackie
Tyler as a role model? On the contrary, the anecdote you provide
suggests a valuable purpose for portraying such behaviour in these
shows - it allows kids the opportunity to make moral judgments for
themselves, and to be shown by example what is wrong, not just what is
to be copied. Quite apart from anything else, the fact that Jackie
didn't have any luck would be something of a disincentive. :-)
You do realise that mythological stories (Biblical or otherwise) aren't
actually historical accounts, don't you? There wasn't really a king
named Oedipus who married his mother and went blind as a result.
Minotaurs aren't a real result of liaisons between women and bulls (or
even gods disguised as bulls). For that matter, are you claiming that
such things as incest and bestiality no longer exist today?
> >
> >> > but a lot of the target audience seems happy with it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That has not been proven.
> >
> > What constitutes proof if not consistently high ratings? If parents
>
> People are watching it because its mostly science-fiction. They are not
> necessarily happed with every part of it as the articles in the Independent
> and the Sun show.
>From what was posted at the start of this thread from the Independent,
all that was saying was that the topics covered in the new Dr. Who
haven't caused anyone to bat an eyelid - mentioning they exist in the
series is not criticism. So, what about answering the question - what
else would constitute 'proof'?
> > were inclined to stop kids watching after a few questionable
> > references, they'd have dropped dramatically after the first couple of
> > episodes.
> >
> >> If you want realistic situations and characters then you only have to
> >> look
> >> in the street.
> >
> > So, instead of watching something like Dr. Who kids should be
> > introduced to the local drug-pushers, prostitutes and bums of their
> > neighbourhood?
>
> How about a morality tale. Daleks are analogous to drug-pushers,
"EXPERIMENT! EXPERIMENT!"
prostitutes
> and bums and they all get wiped out.
How about Daleks being analagous to Daleks
> >
> >> Drama is for Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides.
I missed this the first time. I take it you do realise that
Shakespearean plays such as MacBeth, Anthony & Cleopatra and Julius
Caesar are actually based on real events, and that all of his plays
involve real-world themes. Since you seem so hung up on examples of
inappropriate sexual behaviour, would you introduce your kids to The
Tempest? Hamlet?
Real life
> >> is
> >> for.Big Brother.
> >
> > If you're seriously suggesting Big Brother has any connection at all to
> > real life, I'm guessing you don't spend much time in the real world.
>
> You've obviously been watching too many badly written soaps
I don't watch soaps however well-written they may be.
and haven been
> to the pub, or club or work canteen if you think that.
You may be astonished to learn this, but real life does go on outside
pubs and clubs (though the latter are no doubt a good place to meet
those drug-pushers and prostitutes). Big Brother, quite aside from
being the single most appalling piece of television ever made and one
for which the UK's Channel 4 should sincerely apologise having
inflicted it and its clones on the rest of the world, is an extremely
contrived, artificial situation set up between 'contestants' who are
themselves screened and selected to ensure that they represent a
particular, small subset of the community within a prescribed age
range, and with less savoury features of reality such as drugs removed.
How does that possibly represent 'real life'? Try getting outdoors and
experiencing the real world beyond a pub's walls sometime.
Philip Bowles
Glyn
> <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1119840371.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Agamemnon wrote:
> >> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> >> news:111982728...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
> >> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
> >> >> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:111980997...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
> >> >> > was in some way encouraging teenage pregnancy? Did you notice that
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes. It portrays under age sex as being common place.
> >> >
> >> > No, it doesn't. It portrays it as happening, but being far from
> >> > commonplace. If it were portraying it as commonplace, then Nancy
> >>
> >> Nope. The fact that's its on and is condoned is portraying it as commonplace
> >> and acceptable.
> >
> > This is one character out of the entire cast of this year's Dr. Who
> > (including all the extras populating London and Cardiff), right? You're
>
> This is one character that is being made an example of and which 2 episodes
> are based around.
>
> > seriously saying that makes it commonplace. You might as well say that
>
> Yes. It portrays it as common place and acceptable behaviour by cantering a
> story around it.
Father's Day centres a story about the a hit-and-run accident. Does
that mean it's portrarying it as common place and acceptable behaviour?
> >> This encouraging kids to
> >> have sex and lie about it so they can get way with it.
> >
> > There's no way of getting past your logic, is there? If something you
> > disagree with is portrayed in a favourable light it's acceptable and so
> > should be shouted down. If, on the other hand, it's portrayed as being
> > unacceptable, then in fact what the producers are doing is encouraging
> > not only the action itself but also any further actions aimed at
> > covering it up. You don't see the tiniest little inconsistency there,
> > do you?
>
> There is nothing inconsistent there. These types of issues should not be
> covered in a kids sci-fi show. Let the parents educate their own kids
> properly in their own time not TV. Child sex would not be an issue to these
> kids if it had not been brought up.
I can kind of sympathise with you up to this point...
> Bringing up such disgusting behaviour as
> a subject of a kids show has only one effect and this is to render it
> acceptable because the only thing the kids will understand is that is was
> shown on TV, so everyone else must be doing it, behind their parents backs..
...but you've completely lost me there. Your whole argument boils down
to the idea that if kids see something wrong happening they'll mimic it,
even when it's made blatantly clear that it's a bad idea, unless the
show depicts divine retribution?
Aren't there still kids' programmes that feature slightly dangerous
sports, and get away with this by flashing up messages saying "you must
wear the correct safety equipment". Do you think that these are a bad
influence because they don't show the gory details of what might happen
if they don't wear a crash helmet?
> >>> >> here and in the afterlife the issue was not settled.
> >>> >
> >>> > Many sins/crimes/offences/immoral actions have been depicted on TV
> >>> > shows. Most of these shows try to show that some kind of justice is
> >>> > done, but do you really expect them all to depict the people responsible
> >>> > being punished in the afterlife (skipping forwards a few years if
> >>> > they're not dead yet) of their respective belief systems?
> >>>
> >>> They have to show the punishment in the afterlife in order to exaggerate the
> >>> situation and distinguish it from the desired ideal of everyday life.
> >>>
> >>> When Issac's young daughter is raped by a prince from a neighbouring tribe
> >>> the entire tribe a punished and slaughtered even after the prince offers to
> >>> marry her.
> >
> > Ah, the wonderful child-friendly message that when wronged they should
> > exact bloody revenge and indeed commit genocide.
> Oh you mean like Rose did on the Daleks. Well, you could say she was only
> following the earlier example of the Doctor, or examples if you remember the
> dissuasion about Cassandra.
So you actually believe that we should have seen the father, and his
entire social group, wiped out for his crimes?
And what makes you think that he and his mates haven't already gone off
to fight the war and subsequently been killed?
> > Has it occurred to you
> > that Dr Who is not actually an Old Testament parable?
>
> Actually it has exactly the same purpose as the bible.
Even though this is going dangerously close to a religious flamewar,
I'm gonna have to stop you there. Doctor Who is (or at least claims to
be) entertaining science-fiction. What do you believe the purpose of
the bible to be?
> >> > but a lot of the target audience seems happy with it.
> >>
> >> That has not been proven.
> >
> > What constitutes proof if not consistently high ratings? If parents
>
> People are watching it because its mostly science-fiction. They are not
> necessarily happed with every part of it as the articles in the Independent
> and the Sun show.
Did you actually read the first post in this thread? You obviously
missed that my choice of subject line was sarcastic. The paragraph I
quoted ends with the following summary of the show:
"...and no-one at all seems to mind."
> >> If you want realistic situations and characters then you only have to
> >> look in the street.
> >
> > So, instead of watching something like Dr. Who kids should be
> > introduced to the local drug-pushers, prostitutes and bums of their
> > neighbourhood?
>
> How about a morality tale.
Sorry, TV entertainment is *not* meant to be a morality tale. Most of
the time justice is done, but teaching kids morality is partly the job
of the parents, and partly for the kids to reason out for themselves.
Family TV would be *incredibly* bad watching if every time something
wrong had been done, we saw the wrongdoer burning in hell, in order to
keep hammering home the difference between right and wrong.
> Daleks are analogous to drug-pushers, prostitutes
> and bums and they all get wiped out.
How on earth are you going to make an analogy between Daleks and the
usual menaces to society? And more importantly, how is a 45-minute
science fiction show meant to make that analogy?
> >> Drama is for Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Real life
> >> is for.Big Brother.
> >
> > If you're seriously suggesting Big Brother has any connection at all to
> > real life, I'm guessing you don't spend much time in the real world.
>
> You've obviously been watching too many badly written soaps and haven been
> to the pub, or club or work canteen if you think that.
If, by that, you mean that everybody's boring and spends most of their
spare time talking about utterly inconsequential matters, then I'd agree
with you. However, real life isn't filled with people who know damn
well that they've just been promoted to celebrity status for doing
bugger all.
Drama has to cut a compromise between being realistic to the point of
mindless tedium, and having so many interesting things going on that you
lose your suspension of disbelief. (For me, soaps become too unrealistic
because of their necessity to have something dramatic happening to
one of their small cast at the end of every episode - before long,
everyone's slept, fought or both, with everyone else.)
pbo...@aol.com
>> > that Dr Who is not actually an Old Testament parable?
>
>> Actually it has exactly the same purpose as the bible.
>
>
>
>Even though this is going dangerously close to a religious flamewar,
>I'm gonna have to stop you there. Doctor Who is (or at least claims to
>be) entertaining science-fiction. What do you believe the purpose of
>the bible to be?
Well, there are those who might describe it as entertaining fiction...
:-)
>> > So, instead of watching something like Dr. Who kids should be
>> > introduced to the local drug-pushers, prostitutes and bums of their
>> > neighbourhood?
>
>
>> How about a morality tale.
>
>
>
>Sorry, TV entertainment is *not* meant to be a morality tale.
That probably rather depends on your definition of a morality tale.
Agamemnon's definition as a story that ends with everyone being
divinely punished is not the generally accepted concept. Star Trek's a
morality tale, so are all the superhero stories with their catchphrases
about seeking justice rather than revenge and the like - good stories
in their own right with an underlying moral message, not just a sermon
in story form.
Philip Bowles
808
>On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 04:11:40 GMT, in rec.arts.drwho, 808 <non...@nospam.com> arranged some
>electrons, so they looked like this :
>
> ... On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:27:37 +0200, Magda <<?>> wrote:
> ...
> ... >On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:22:25 GMT, in rec.arts.drwho, 808 <non...@nospam.com> arranged some
> ... >electrons, so they looked like this :
> ... >
> ... > ... On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:55:12 +0200, Magda <<?>> wrote:
> ... > ...
> ... > ... >On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:07:22 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho, Glyn
> ... > ... ><glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
> ... > ... >
> ... > ... > ... Today's Independent includes a feature named "The Pink List - The 101
> ... > ... > ... most powerful gay men and women in Britain".
> ... > ... > ...
> ... > ... > ... I thought FairPlay was just being a conspiracy nut when he claimed that
> ... > ... > ... his opinions are discredited because "The queers *are* in power.
> ... > ... > ... Geddit?" Obviously, I was wrong on this - there's a huge number of
> ... > ... > ... influential people abusing their positions of power in order to
> ... > ... > ... brainwash us with their Gay Agenda. The top three are Elton John, Ian
> ... > ... > ... McKellen and Peter Mandelson, and the list also includes such
> ... > ... > ... otherwise-respected figures as Matt Lucas (6), Stephen Fry (21) and Boy
> ... > ... > ... George (42). RTD himself appears at number 73.
> ... > ... > ...
> ... > ... > ... The introductory article includes this paragraph:
> ... > ... > ...
> ... > ... > ... Sandwiched between the old-fashioned music-hall camp of a Graham
> ... > ... > ... Norton and Julian Clary, something much more amusing and inspiring was
> ... > ... > ... taking place. Russell T Davies sent the tabloids into a foaming
> ... > ... > ... lather, nearly a decade ago, with his /Queer as Folk/. Now, in 2005,
> ... > ... > ... he has revived, with wit and verve, /Doctor Who/. Among a series of
> ... > ... > ... admissions about urban life - a black character, a single mother
> ... > ... >
> ... > ... >Jackie is a widow, why do they need to call her a "single mother" ?
> ... > ... >
> ... > ...
> ... > ... Because she is single and a mother.
> ... >
> ... >She was married, her husband died, and now she is "single" ?
> ...
> ... Pretty much. She is a widow therefore she is single.
>
>And once a virgin, always a virgin, right ?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'single' as:
"not involved in an established romantic or sexual relationship."
Unless I am completely wrong in thinking that Jackie isn't in an
established relationship then I can't see what part of that definition
doesn't fit.
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119853527.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes. It portrays under age sex as being common place.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, it doesn't. It portrays it as happening, but being far from
>> >> > commonplace. If it were portraying it as commonplace, then Nancy
>> >>
>> >> Nope. The fact that's its on and is condoned is portraying it as
>> >> commonplace
>> >> and acceptable.
>> >
>> > This is one character out of the entire cast of this year's Dr. Who
>> > (including all the extras populating London and Cardiff), right? You're
>>
>> This is one character that is being made an example of
>
> Hardly a good example based on the state her character is in.
Not a good example to show to children, so she should not have been in it at
all.
>
>> > seriously saying that makes it commonplace. You might as well say that
>>
>> Yes. It portrays it as common place and acceptable behaviour by cantering
>> a
>> story around it.
>
> For your benefit, the definition of "common" is "abundant", "frequent"
> or any of a number of other synonyms, which do not include "the focus
> of a story". Stories are often set around unusual behaviour for
> precisely that reason - what sort of story can you base around the idea
> of someone having a child at an 'appropriate' age? As for whether or
Lots of stories. Using an underage mother at the centre of the story is
unacceptable because it makes it look common.
> not it's acceptable, that depends wholly on the context of the story. A
> Star Trek episode called "Business as Usual" focused heavily on arms
> trading and the consequences it has for people drawn into conflicts as
> a result, and it definitely did not imply acceptance of money-grubbing
> arms dealers.
Completely different situation. How many children are going to encounter gun
runeers that are other children ?
>
>> > because a couple of the characters travel through time between
>> > episodes, time travel is commonplace.
>>
>> No. Time travel is not part of everyday life. Having kids is therefore
>> unsuitable role modes should not be used.
>
> You still haven't given any reason for thinking that Jackie is likely
> to be taken as, or is intended as, a role model for anyone - any kid
Because half the girls in my year at school were just like her and assuming
they are now mothers the portrayal of Jackie as a common slipper reinforces
that role model. The correct way of portraying that kind of character is
through mockery and that is exactly how Vicky Pollard is portrayed in Little
Britain, and it is though mockery that people are discouraged from behaving
in that way. As I said before Drama is for Shakespeare. Real life is for
Comedy.
> who aspires to Jackie's life of drudgery and regret has severe problems
> already.
>>
>> There is nothing inconsistent there. These types of issues should not be
>> covered in a kids sci-fi show.
>
> So any way in which they are covered, in however negative a light,
> necessarily constitutes encouragement? Your world really is black and
> white, isn't it?
Nope. I repeat. Real life is for Comedy. Jackie Tyler belongs Little
Britain.
>
> Let the parents educate their own kids
>> properly in their own time not TV.
>
> And if they aren't inclined to/aren't able to/aren't listened to or
> simply don't have a well-developed sense of morality themselves?
Do you know what. Maybe people should be licensed to have kids after the
pass a parenting test.
> Parents' admonitions have been remarkably ineffective at preventing
> delinquent behaviour - given the choice between warning a child about
> drug use, say, by getting the parents to 'educate' them or showing them
> a film like "Ray", I'd put more faith in the film having a positive
Ah... yes. Romanticise drug taking why don't we.
Of course it is. For Dalek God read Satan.
> Philip Pullman made an entire series of books based on the idea of
> destroying God - they can hardly be called religious either.
Destroying which God ?
Having known girls like that at school I know what I'm talking about.
> suggests a valuable purpose for portraying such behaviour in these
> shows - it allows kids the opportunity to make moral judgments for
> themselves, and to be shown by example what is wrong, not just what is
> to be copied. Quite apart from anything else, the fact that Jackie
> didn't have any luck would be something of a disincentive. :-)
>
Not by their way of thinking. Watch the Vicky Pollard sketches on Little
Britain. They couldn't be closer to the truth.
You do actually realise that Oedipus was a real king of Thebes and his
palace actually exists as do the palaces of Jason, Agamemnon, Neleus,
Theseus, and Minos. Now do go on and tell me that all of these people and
their forefathers and descendents were part of a huge conspiracy theory by
the ancient Greeks spanning over 1000 years to the time of Aeschylus,
Sophocles and Euripides, and over 200 Greek city states all colluded
together so that none of their histories would contradict. Nope. The only
thing close to a conspiracy that took place was that the true histories were
sanitised for public consumption by the addition of divine retribution.
> named Oedipus who married his mother and went blind as a result.
Lots of Egyptian Pharaohs married their own mothers.
The mother of Oedipus childern was Euryganeia daughter of Hyperphas not his
mother Iocasta by the way.
> Minotaurs aren't a real result of liaisons between women and bulls (or
Oh really.... tell me more. The Minotaur was Asterius the son of Minos.
> even gods disguised as bulls). For that matter, are you claiming that
> such things as incest and bestiality no longer exist today?
>
And your point being. Are you trying to justify them being shown on TV
without divine retribution taking place ?
>> >
>> >> > but a lot of the target audience seems happy with it.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That has not been proven.
>> >
>> > What constitutes proof if not consistently high ratings? If parents
>>
>> People are watching it because its mostly science-fiction. They are not
>> necessarily happed with every part of it as the articles in the
>> Independent
>> and the Sun show.
>
>>From what was posted at the start of this thread from the Independent,
> all that was saying was that the topics covered in the new Dr. Who
> haven't caused anyone to bat an eyelid - mentioning they exist in the
> series is not criticism. So, what about answering the question - what
> else would constitute 'proof'?
Ratings are not proof of anything. How about reading what people are writing
in this newsgroup.
>
>> > were inclined to stop kids watching after a few questionable
>> > references, they'd have dropped dramatically after the first couple of
>> > episodes.
>> >
>> >> If you want realistic situations and characters then you only have to
>> >> look
>> >> in the street.
>> >
>> > So, instead of watching something like Dr. Who kids should be
>> > introduced to the local drug-pushers, prostitutes and bums of their
>> > neighbourhood?
>>
>> How about a morality tale. Daleks are analogous to drug-pushers,
>
> "EXPERIMENT! EXPERIMENT!"
>
> prostitutes
>> and bums and they all get wiped out.
>
> How about Daleks being analagous to Daleks
>
>> >
>> >> Drama is for Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides.
>
> I missed this the first time. I take it you do realise that
> Shakespearean plays such as MacBeth, Anthony & Cleopatra and Julius
> Caesar are actually based on real events, and that all of his plays
Now that one somehow escaped me.
> involve real-world themes. Since you seem so hung up on examples of
> inappropriate sexual behaviour, would you introduce your kids to The
> Tempest? Hamlet?
They'd find them boring and rightly so. These plays are for adults. And
anyway these noting harmful in the Tempest or Hamlet because everyone gets
their just deserts and they are removed from everyday life. These plays are
about the rich and powerful and that's why Dallas and Dynasty are acceptable
soaps whereas Eastenders and Coronation Street are not.
>
> Real life
>> >> is
>> >> for.Big Brother.
>> >
>> > If you're seriously suggesting Big Brother has any connection at all to
>> > real life, I'm guessing you don't spend much time in the real world.
>>
>> You've obviously been watching too many badly written soaps
>
> I don't watch soaps however well-written they may be.
>
> and haven been
>> to the pub, or club or work canteen if you think that.
>
> You may be astonished to learn this, but real life does go on outside
> pubs and clubs (though the latter are no doubt a good place to meet
> those drug-pushers and prostitutes). Big Brother, quite aside from
> being the single most appalling piece of television ever made and one
> for which the UK's Channel 4 should sincerely apologise having
> inflicted it and its clones on the rest of the world, is an extremely
Actually Big Brother came from Holland.
> contrived, artificial situation set up between 'contestants' who are
> themselves screened and selected to ensure that they represent a
> particular, small subset of the community within a prescribed age
> range, and with less savoury features of reality such as drugs removed.
> How does that possibly represent 'real life'? Try getting outdoors and
They are real people in real situations not some script writers attempt to
create stereotypes to serve his political agenda.
> experiencing the real world beyond a pub's walls sometime.
Oh but I do.
>
> Philip Bowles
>
Agamemnon
The driver of the car was not portrayed as a hero so there is no problem
with the morality of the story.
>
>> >> This encouraging kids to
>> >> have sex and lie about it so they can get way with it.
>> >
>> > There's no way of getting past your logic, is there? If something you
>> > disagree with is portrayed in a favourable light it's acceptable and so
>> > should be shouted down. If, on the other hand, it's portrayed as being
>> > unacceptable, then in fact what the producers are doing is encouraging
>> > not only the action itself but also any further actions aimed at
>> > covering it up. You don't see the tiniest little inconsistency there,
>> > do you?
>>
>> There is nothing inconsistent there. These types of issues should not be
>> covered in a kids sci-fi show. Let the parents educate their own kids
>> properly in their own time not TV. Child sex would not be an issue to
>> these
>> kids if it had not been brought up.
>
> I can kind of sympathise with you up to this point...
>
>> Bringing up such disgusting behaviour as
>> a subject of a kids show has only one effect and this is to render it
>> acceptable because the only thing the kids will understand is that is
>> was
>> shown on TV, so everyone else must be doing it, behind their parents
>> backs..
>
> ...but you've completely lost me there. Your whole argument boils down
> to the idea that if kids see something wrong happening they'll mimic it,
Correct.
> even when it's made blatantly clear that it's a bad idea, unless the
Yes.
> show depicts divine retribution?
And divorces that act in question sufficiently far enough from realiry.
Perseus slays a monstrous Gorgon rather than an ordinary woman.
>
> Aren't there still kids' programmes that feature slightly dangerous
> sports, and get away with this by flashing up messages saying "you must
> wear the correct safety equipment". Do you think that these are a bad
> influence because they don't show the gory details of what might happen
> if they don't wear a crash helmet?
Are these programmes encouraging people to go out and crash their bikes or
to ride them with care. I think the latter.
I believe that the entire plot device should not even been allowed in the
first place.
If they wanted to cover the issue of under age sex then they should have
done the story of Theseus when he kidnapped Helen when he was 50 years old
and she was only 12, and subsequently ended up stuck to a seat in Hades even
though he did not even intend touch her until she came of age.
>
> And what makes you think that he and his mates haven't already gone off
> to fight the war and subsequently been killed?
>
>> > Has it occurred to you
>> > that Dr Who is not actually an Old Testament parable?
>>
>> Actually it has exactly the same purpose as the bible.
>
> Even though this is going dangerously close to a religious flamewar,
> I'm gonna have to stop you there. Doctor Who is (or at least claims to
> be) entertaining science-fiction. What do you believe the purpose of
> the bible to be?
The same as the purpose of the Iliad, except the Iliad is more poetic.
>
>> >> > but a lot of the target audience seems happy with it.
>> >>
>> >> That has not been proven.
>> >
>> > What constitutes proof if not consistently high ratings? If parents
>>
>> People are watching it because its mostly science-fiction. They are not
>> necessarily happed with every part of it as the articles in the
>> Independent
>> and the Sun show.
>
> Did you actually read the first post in this thread? You obviously
> missed that my choice of subject line was sarcastic. The paragraph I
> quoted ends with the following summary of the show:
>
> "...and no-one at all seems to mind."
Ah... but no-one is actually someone so he does mind.
>
>> >> If you want realistic situations and characters then you only have to
>> >> look in the street.
>> >
>> > So, instead of watching something like Dr. Who kids should be
>> > introduced to the local drug-pushers, prostitutes and bums of their
>> > neighbourhood?
>>
>> How about a morality tale.
>
> Sorry, TV entertainment is *not* meant to be a morality tale. Most of
Of course it is, but most of what's on TV does not come close because its
utter garbage.
> the time justice is done, but teaching kids morality is partly the job
> of the parents, and partly for the kids to reason out for themselves.
Which is why it was not RTD's place to make it part of Doctor Who.
> Family TV would be *incredibly* bad watching if every time something
> wrong had been done, we saw the wrongdoer burning in hell, in order to
> keep hammering home the difference between right and wrong.
>
No. And who says they have to burn. Pushing rocks up hills, being tired to
spinning wheels and having them immersed in water up to their necks but
being unable to drink would make for far more interesting stories.
>> Daleks are analogous to drug-pushers, prostitutes
>> and bums and they all get wiped out.
>
> How on earth are you going to make an analogy between Daleks and the
> usual menaces to society? And more importantly, how is a 45-minute
> science fiction show meant to make that analogy?
Didn't they already do it in Evil of the Daleks with the Human Factor ?
>
>> >> Drama is for Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Real
>> >> life
>> >> is for.Big Brother.
>> >
>> > If you're seriously suggesting Big Brother has any connection at all to
>> > real life, I'm guessing you don't spend much time in the real world.
>>
>> You've obviously been watching too many badly written soaps and haven
>> been
>> to the pub, or club or work canteen if you think that.
>
> If, by that, you mean that everybody's boring and spends most of their
> spare time talking about utterly inconsequential matters, then I'd agree
> with you. However, real life isn't filled with people who know damn
> well that they've just been promoted to celebrity status for doing
> bugger all.
>
> Drama has to cut a compromise between being realistic to the point of
> mindless tedium, and having so many interesting things going on that you
> lose your suspension of disbelief. (For me, soaps become too unrealistic
> because of their necessity to have something dramatic happening to
> one of their small cast at the end of every episode - before long,
> everyone's slept, fought or both, with everyone else.)
Drama is Star Wars and Indiana Jones. The stuff the BBC likes to call drama
is soap, and thats stuff that does just enough keep you watching the TV
without separating you from everyday life until the next commercial break
comes along, so that you relate to the products the commercials are
advertising. The advertisers wouldn't want you to watch a programme showing
sonic washing machines being used in the future when they are trying to sell
you washing powder.
808
<glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote:
>Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
>> "Magda >" <<?> wrote in message
>> news:8qjtb1th9r1duur8e...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:07:22 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho, Glyn
>> > <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> arranged some electrons, so they
>> > looked like this :
>> > ... [...] and no-one at all seems to
>> > ... mind. Things have changed a great deal.
>> >
>> > Thank heavens...
>>
>> For what. Morality has gone down the toilet and RTD's corruption of our
>> youth with unsuitable role models like teenage mothers and slappers is one
>> reason for it. Eastenders and Coronation Street are another.
>
>Are you claiming that showing a character who had been a teenage mother
>was in some way encouraging teenage pregnancy? Did you notice that
>the social consequences of her situation were also explored?
Are you referring to the one which was only resolved when the teenage
single mother overcame the unfair social stigma of having a baby
underage and unmarried and finally admitted that she was the rampaging
child's mommy? Wasn't that more about not judging single mums than an
exploration of the consequences of having a kid before you've even had
a life? I don't remember the episodes that well so, if I've forgotten
scenes that tackle the issue more directly, then please remind me.
(for the record I don't think DW corrupts kids)
808
>On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:40:10 GMT, in rec.arts.drwho, 808 <non...@nospam.com> arranged some
>electrons, so they looked like this :
>
>
> ... Unless I am completely wrong in thinking that Jackie isn't in an
> ... established relationship then I can't see what part of that definition
> ... doesn't fit.
>
>She may be available/free to marry (*again*), but technically she is not single, she is a
>widow.
Would you still class her as a widow if she had a boyfriend?
evilgeniusabroad
Glyn
> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> > ...but you've completely lost me there. Your whole argument boils down
> > to the idea that if kids see something wrong happening they'll mimic it,
>
> Correct.
>
> > even when it's made blatantly clear that it's a bad idea, unless the
>
> Yes.
>
> > show depicts divine retribution?
>
> And divorces that act in question sufficiently far enough from realiry.
> Perseus slays a monstrous Gorgon rather than an ordinary woman.
In an age when an increasing number of people aren't convinced that
there *is* an afterlife, I suspect that these immoral kids aren't really
going to be put off wrongdoing by threats of divine retribution. Surely
it's better to show the immediate, believable consequences of their
actions than to make the unjustified claim that they'll be punished once
they're dead?
> > Aren't there still kids' programmes that feature slightly dangerous
> > sports, and get away with this by flashing up messages saying "you must
> > wear the correct safety equipment". Do you think that these are a bad
> > influence because they don't show the gory details of what might happen
> > if they don't wear a crash helmet?
>
> Are these programmes encouraging people to go out and crash their bikes or
> to ride them with care. I think the latter.
And the scenes in question weren't *encouraging* people to have underage
sex or flirt in a manner to which you take exception.
Yeah, but that story's already been done - we want a *new* story.
> Of course it is, [...]
What do you mean, "Of course"? Where do you get this idea?
> but most of what's on TV does not come close because its utter garbage.
OK, I can see we're getting nowhere here. I find your claim - that
good drama must be a morality tale involving mythical creatures, and
that anything more realistic must be played only for laughs - nothing
less than absurd, but I can't for the life of me find a reliable reason
why. All I can think of is examples of other things which I find
entertaining without them preaching to me, which you'll no doubt shoot
down in flames too.
It's just odd that I, and countless others, can find a story
entertaining without it having to waste time hammering home who the bad
parties are and detailing the cruel and unusual punishments that befell
them as a result of their crimes. I don't know if that means that we're
all mindless sheep or what...
> > the time justice is done, but teaching kids morality is partly the job
> > of the parents, and partly for the kids to reason out for themselves.
>
> Which is why it was not RTD's place to make it part of Doctor Who.
...which is why he *didn't* make morality part of Doctor Who. It's
fiction, designed to entertain the audience, not to condition them.
> >> Daleks are analogous to drug-pushers, prostitutes
> >> and bums and they all get wiped out.
> >
> > How on earth are you going to make an analogy between Daleks and the
> > usual menaces to society? And more importantly, how is a 45-minute
> > science fiction show meant to make that analogy?
>
> Didn't they already do it in Evil of the Daleks with the Human Factor ?
The made an analogy between Daleks and drugdealers, prostitutes and
bums? I haven't listened to the surviving recordings, but I find that
unlikely.
> > Drama has to cut a compromise between being realistic to the point of
> > mindless tedium, and having so many interesting things going on that you
> > lose your suspension of disbelief. (For me, soaps become too unrealistic
> > because of their necessity to have something dramatic happening to
> > one of their small cast at the end of every episode - before long,
> > everyone's slept, fought or both, with everyone else.)
>
> Drama is Star Wars and Indiana Jones. The stuff the BBC likes to call drama
> is soap, and thats stuff that does just enough keep you watching the TV
> without separating you from everyday life until the next commercial break
> comes along, so that you relate to the products the commercials are
> advertising.
On the BBC, there aren't any adverts (except for those advertising other
BBC productions...). These programs are on, believe it or not, so that
people can watch the shows themselves.
> The advertisers wouldn't want you to watch a programme showing
> sonic washing machines being used in the future when they are trying to sell
> you washing powder.
That's a rather contrived example - removing the character-based scenes
from a show and setting it in the future won't automatically stop it
from being a possible marketing avenue.
Glyn
> > to be taken as, or is intended as, a role model for anyone - any kid
>
> Because half the girls in my year at school were just like her and assuming
> they are now mothers the portrayal of Jackie as a common slipper reinforces
> that role model. The correct way of portraying that kind of character is
> through mockery and that is exactly how Vicky Pollard is portrayed in Little
> Britain, and it is though mockery that people are discouraged from behaving
> in that way. As I said before Drama is for Shakespeare. Real life is for
> Comedy.
You didn't spot that the scene of Jackie's failed seduction was meant to
be amusing, then?
Oh, and I know it was only a typo, but I really cannot help myself from
drawing attention to this one :-D
"portrayal of Jackie as a common slipper"
Glyn
808
>On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:51:56 GMT, in rec.arts.drwho, 808 <non...@nospam.com> arranged some
>electrons, so they looked like this :
>
> ... On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:52:54 +0200, Magda <<?>> wrote:
> ...
> ... >On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:40:10 GMT, in rec.arts.drwho, 808 <non...@nospam.com> arranged some
> ... >electrons, so they looked like this :
> ... >
> ... >
> ... > ... Unless I am completely wrong in thinking that Jackie isn't in an
> ... > ... established relationship then I can't see what part of that definition
> ... > ... doesn't fit.
> ... >
> ... >She may be available/free to marry (*again*), but technically she is not single, she is a
> ... >widow.
> ...
> ... Would you still class her as a widow if she had a boyfriend?
>
>Are you kidding me? A boyfriend is not a husband.
Let me rephrase. If Jackie had had any steady boyfriends in the 18 or
so years since she was widowed, would you still regard her as a widow
for that whole time? In other words can someone who is a widow have a
boyfriend or do they stop being a widow the moment they start another
relationship whether that new relationship leads to marriage or not?
I hope that's clear enough.
Agamemnon
> Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
>> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
>> news:111985646...@despina.uk.clara.net...
>> > ...but you've completely lost me there. Your whole argument boils down
>> > to the idea that if kids see something wrong happening they'll mimic
>> > it,
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> > even when it's made blatantly clear that it's a bad idea, unless the
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> > show depicts divine retribution?
>>
>> And divorces that act in question sufficiently far enough from realiry.
>> Perseus slays a monstrous Gorgon rather than an ordinary woman.
>
> In an age when an increasing number of people aren't convinced that
> there *is* an afterlife, I suspect that these immoral kids aren't really
> going to be put off wrongdoing by threats of divine retribution. Surely
> it's better to show the immediate, believable consequences of their
> actions than to make the unjustified claim that they'll be punished once
> they're dead?
The don't have the believe in an afterlife themselves. All they have to do
is believe that the characters believe in an afterlife and have morals.
>
>> > Aren't there still kids' programmes that feature slightly dangerous
>> > sports, and get away with this by flashing up messages saying "you must
>> > wear the correct safety equipment". Do you think that these are a bad
>> > influence because they don't show the gory details of what might happen
>> > if they don't wear a crash helmet?
>>
>> Are these programmes encouraging people to go out and crash their bikes
>> or
>> to ride them with care. I think the latter.
>
> And the scenes in question weren't *encouraging* people to have underage
> sex or flirt in a manner to which you take exception.
Yes they were. They were portraying them as acceptable by making them part
of the story without reproaching them.
So have stories about underage mothers, so why include them in Doctor Who
where they don't belong.
And the Slitheen and Autons are not mythical right.
> that anything more realistic must be played only for laughs - nothing
That was the view of the Doctor Who production team during the Tom Baker
years. Mythology and subtle comedy, and no in your face slapstick.
> less than absurd, but I can't for the life of me find a reliable reason
> why. All I can think of is examples of other things which I find
> entertaining without them preaching to me, which you'll no doubt shoot
> down in flames too.
>
> It's just odd that I, and countless others, can find a story
> entertaining without it having to waste time hammering home who the bad
> parties are and detailing the cruel and unusual punishments that befell
> them as a result of their crimes. I don't know if that means that we're
> all mindless sheep or what...
>
>> > the time justice is done, but teaching kids morality is partly the job
>> > of the parents, and partly for the kids to reason out for themselves.
>>
>> Which is why it was not RTD's place to make it part of Doctor Who.
>
> ...which is why he *didn't* make morality part of Doctor Who. It's
Nope. That's not what he implied in Doctor Who confidential when he said
"get them while their young" in reference to his political and sexual
agenda.
> fiction, designed to entertain the audience, not to condition them.
>
>> >> Daleks are analogous to drug-pushers, prostitutes
>> >> and bums and they all get wiped out.
>> >
>> > How on earth are you going to make an analogy between Daleks and the
>> > usual menaces to society? And more importantly, how is a 45-minute
>> > science fiction show meant to make that analogy?
>>
>> Didn't they already do it in Evil of the Daleks with the Human Factor ?
>
> The made an analogy between Daleks and drugdealers, prostitutes and
> bums? I haven't listened to the surviving recordings, but I find that
> unlikely.
The Dakeks try to make themselves stronger with the Human Factor but it ends
up driving them mad.
>
>> > Drama has to cut a compromise between being realistic to the point of
>> > mindless tedium, and having so many interesting things going on that
>> > you
>> > lose your suspension of disbelief. (For me, soaps become too
>> > unrealistic
>> > because of their necessity to have something dramatic happening to
>> > one of their small cast at the end of every episode - before long,
>> > everyone's slept, fought or both, with everyone else.)
>>
>> Drama is Star Wars and Indiana Jones. The stuff the BBC likes to call
>> drama
>> is soap, and thats stuff that does just enough keep you watching the TV
>> without separating you from everyday life until the next commercial
>> break
>> comes along, so that you relate to the products the commercials are
>> advertising.
>
> On the BBC, there aren't any adverts (except for those advertising other
On the stations its selling the series too there are.
> BBC productions...). These programs are on, believe it or not, so that
> people can watch the shows themselves.
Not as far as the BBC is concerned. Most of the BBC's output is one huge ego
trip for the programme makers who think all their 5th rate cop shows and
so-caleld "dramas" about single parents, drug dealers, adultery, race
relations and social outcasts are the height of culture. These shows aren't
watched by anyone except the would-be criminals, perverts and racists they
make into heroes, because they're boring badly written crap, which
encourages acceptance of moral depravitude by acclimatising people to it.
>
>> The advertisers wouldn't want you to watch a programme showing
>> sonic washing machines being used in the future when they are trying to
>> sell
>> you washing powder.
>
> That's a rather contrived example - removing the character-based scenes
> from a show and setting it in the future won't automatically stop it
> from being a possible marketing avenue.
But it would make it into Science-Fiction which is what its supposed to be.
Agamemnon
"Magda >" <<?> wrote in message
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:49:51 GMT, in rec.arts.drwho, 808
> ... Let me rephrase. If Jackie had had any steady boyfriends in the 18 or
> ... so years since she was widowed, would you still regard her as a widow
> ... for that whole time? In other words can someone who is a widow have a
> ... boyfriend or do they stop being a widow the moment they start another
> ... relationship whether that new relationship leads to marriage or not?
> ...
> ... I hope that's clear enough.
>
> If she hasn't remarried, she is still a widow. Is it clear enough?
>
Maybe she should ware black until she re-maiires, like Irini Papas in Zorba
the Greek except when her character tried to have an affair she was stoned
to death. Let that be a lesson to Jackie Tyler about flirting. Proxenia is
what she needs to find a husband.
Glyn
> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> > In an age when an increasing number of people aren't convinced that
> > there *is* an afterlife, I suspect that these immoral kids aren't really
> > going to be put off wrongdoing by threats of divine retribution. Surely
> > it's better to show the immediate, believable consequences of their
> > actions than to make the unjustified claim that they'll be punished once
> > they're dead?
>
> The don't have the believe in an afterlife themselves. All they have to do
> is believe that the characters believe in an afterlife and have morals.
How will that help? If the show depicts someone getting punished in the
afterlife for their crimes, but the kid watching doesn't believe in the
afterlife, won't this be *less* of a deterrent than, say, showing the
character being socially rejected for their crime, or even being
punished by an existing legal system?
> >> If they wanted to cover the issue of under age sex then they should have
> >> done the story of Theseus when he kidnapped Helen when he was 50 years
> >> old and she was only 12
> >
> > Yeah, but that story's already been done - we want a *new* story.
>
> So have stories about underage mothers, so why include them in Doctor Who
> where they don't belong.
I don't remember there being any stories about underage mothers and
nanogenes set in WWII. Is that original enough for you?
"There isn't a little boy born who wouldn't tear the world apart to save
his mummy - and this little boy can." It's important that the boy
*does* find his mother, and this is as good an explanation as any as to
why he hasn't been able to find her yet - that he has been lied to
about who his mother really was. It's shown that underage sex has
long-term consequences, and that you can't permanently cover them up by
lying about it.
What more do you want? I know that you think that including the
character at all was wrong, but given the situation, how *would* you
have resolved it to send out what you believe to be the right message?
> >> >> >> If you want realistic situations and characters then you only have
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> look in the street.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So, instead of watching something like Dr. Who kids should be
> >> >> > introduced to the local drug-pushers, prostitutes and bums of their
> >> >> > neighbourhood?
> >> >>
> >> >> How about a morality tale.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, TV entertainment is *not* meant to be a morality tale. Most of
> >>
> >> Of course it is, [...]
> >
> > What do you mean, "Of course"? Where do you get this idea?
You haven't answered this bit. Why do you think that all serious works
of fiction should be moral propaganda?
> >> but most of what's on TV does not come close because its utter garbage.
> >
> > OK, I can see we're getting nowhere here. I find your claim - that
> > good drama must be a morality tale involving mythical creatures, and
>
> And the Slitheen and Autons are not mythical right.
Oh, I see. If the bad guy is a big slimy monster, no matter how
realistic it is intended to be (there was an *attempt* to put some
science behind the Slitheens, even it fell flat on its face), then it's
acceptable. But if the bad guy is a plain old human, it's far too
realistic and is only fit for comedy?
> > that anything more realistic must be played only for laughs - nothing
>
> That was the view of the Doctor Who production team during the Tom Baker
> years. Mythology and subtle comedy, and no in your face slapstick.
>
> > less than absurd, but I can't for the life of me find a reliable reason
> > why. All I can think of is examples of other things which I find
> > entertaining without them preaching to me, which you'll no doubt shoot
> > down in flames too.
> >
> > It's just odd that I, and countless others, can find a story
> > entertaining without it having to waste time hammering home who the bad
> > parties are and detailing the cruel and unusual punishments that befell
> > them as a result of their crimes. I don't know if that means that we're
> > all mindless sheep or what...
> >
> >> > the time justice is done, but teaching kids morality is partly the job
> >> > of the parents, and partly for the kids to reason out for themselves.
> >>
> >> Which is why it was not RTD's place to make it part of Doctor Who.
> >
> > ...which is why he *didn't* make morality part of Doctor Who. It's
>
> Nope. That's not what he implied in Doctor Who confidential when he said
> "get them while their young" in reference to his political and sexual
> agenda.
OK, so let's agree that he's trying to brainwash us all. Now you're
complaining because he's not presenting a view exactly like your own.
Or better still, he has the same broad intentions as you (the single
mother and desperate housewife aren't shown as being a good idea) but
you're dissatisfied because he's not using the imagery that you'd find
most effective.
> >> >> Daleks are analogous to drug-pushers, prostitutes
> >> >> and bums and they all get wiped out.
> >> >
> >> > How on earth are you going to make an analogy between Daleks and the
> >> > usual menaces to society? And more importantly, how is a 45-minute
> >> > science fiction show meant to make that analogy?
> >>
> >> Didn't they already do it in Evil of the Daleks with the Human Factor ?
> >
> > The made an analogy between Daleks and drugdealers, prostitutes and
> > bums? I haven't listened to the surviving recordings, but I find that
> > unlikely.
>
> The Dakeks try to make themselves stronger with the Human Factor but it ends
> up driving them mad.
And that is an analogy with (specifically) drugdealers, prostitutes and
bums or (generally) the usual menaces to society how, exactly? By
suggesting that the evil in society is a result of being injected with
the Dalek Factor?
I'm working from the BBC Who site's summary of the episode here, so you
may have to explain the relevance, and indeed the original plot, in more
detail.
> > These programs are on, believe it or not, so that
> > people can watch the shows themselves.
>
> Not as far as the BBC is concerned. Most of the BBC's output is one huge ego
> trip for the programme makers who think all their 5th rate cop shows and
> so-caleld "dramas" about single parents, drug dealers, adultery, race
> relations and social outcasts are the height of culture. These shows aren't
> watched by anyone except the would-be criminals, perverts and racists they
> make into heroes, because they're boring badly written crap, which
> encourages acceptance of moral depravitude by acclimatising people to it.
Well if these shows aren't watched by anyone except the morally bankrupt
anyway, then they can't be responsible for a decline.
Do you have any evidence (even anecdotal) to support the suggestion that
everyone who watches any BBC drama is a would-be criminal, pervert or
racist?
And are you *sure* that failing to show someone being struck down by
almighty vengeance (or similar) is equivalent to heroifying them?
Agamemnon
> Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
>> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
>> news:111989816...@echo.uk.clara.net...
>> > In an age when an increasing number of people aren't convinced that
>> > there *is* an afterlife, I suspect that these immoral kids aren't
>> > really
>> > going to be put off wrongdoing by threats of divine retribution.
>> > Surely
>> > it's better to show the immediate, believable consequences of their
>> > actions than to make the unjustified claim that they'll be punished
>> > once
>> > they're dead?
>>
>> The don't have the believe in an afterlife themselves. All they have to
>> do
>> is believe that the characters believe in an afterlife and have morals.
>
> How will that help? If the show depicts someone getting punished in the
> afterlife for their crimes, but the kid watching doesn't believe in the
> afterlife, won't this be *less* of a deterrent than, say, showing the
> character being socially rejected for their crime, or even being
No. A higher power is required. A society which breeds someone who is
immoral is not in a position to pass judgement.
> punished by an existing legal system?
Everyone has known since the time of Aristophanes and the trial of Socrates
that the legal system is a sham.
>
>> >> If they wanted to cover the issue of under age sex then they should
>> >> have
>> >> done the story of Theseus when he kidnapped Helen when he was 50
>> >> years
>> >> old and she was only 12
>> >
>> > Yeah, but that story's already been done - we want a *new* story.
>>
>> So have stories about underage mothers, so why include them in Doctor
>> Who
>> where they don't belong.
>
> I don't remember there being any stories about underage mothers and
> nanogenes set in WWII. Is that original enough for you?
There have been stories about underage mothers. Stop trying to wriggle out
of to by linking it with nanogenes.
>
> "There isn't a little boy born who wouldn't tear the world apart to save
> his mummy - and this little boy can." It's important that the boy
> *does* find his mother, and this is as good an explanation as any as to
> why he hasn't been able to find her yet - that he has been lied to
> about who his mother really was. It's shown that underage sex has
> long-term consequences, and that you can't permanently cover them up by
> lying about it.
It encourages people to have underage sex and to hide it and that all of
this is being condoned by being made a plot device.
>
> What more do you want? I know that you think that including the
> character at all was wrong, but given the situation, how *would* you
> have resolved it to send out what you believe to be the right message?
The story should not have been done at all in that manner. They could have
had an adult mother who put her child into adoption because of pervery who
had to deny she was the child's mother because she had kidnapped him from
his adoptive parents.
Most effective to children in a way that does not encourage perversion.
>
>> >> >> Daleks are analogous to drug-pushers, prostitutes
>> >> >> and bums and they all get wiped out.
>> >> >
>> >> > How on earth are you going to make an analogy between Daleks and the
>> >> > usual menaces to society? And more importantly, how is a 45-minute
>> >> > science fiction show meant to make that analogy?
>> >>
>> >> Didn't they already do it in Evil of the Daleks with the Human Factor
>> >> ?
>> >
>> > The made an analogy between Daleks and drugdealers, prostitutes and
>> > bums? I haven't listened to the surviving recordings, but I find that
>> > unlikely.
>>
>> The Dakeks try to make themselves stronger with the Human Factor but it
>> ends
>> up driving them mad.
>
> And that is an analogy with (specifically) drugdealers, prostitutes and
> bums or (generally) the usual menaces to society how, exactly? By
> suggesting that the evil in society is a result of being injected with
> the Dalek Factor?
>
> I'm working from the BBC Who site's summary of the episode here, so you
> may have to explain the relevance, and indeed the original plot, in more
> detail.
I've said all I need to say.
>
>> > These programs are on, believe it or not, so that
>> > people can watch the shows themselves.
>>
>> Not as far as the BBC is concerned. Most of the BBC's output is one huge
>> ego
>> trip for the programme makers who think all their 5th rate cop shows and
>> so-caleld "dramas" about single parents, drug dealers, adultery, race
>> relations and social outcasts are the height of culture. These shows
>> aren't
>> watched by anyone except the would-be criminals, perverts and racists
>> they
>> make into heroes, because they're boring badly written crap, which
>> encourages acceptance of moral depravitude by acclimatising people to
>> it.
>
> Well if these shows aren't watched by anyone except the morally bankrupt
> anyway, then they can't be responsible for a decline.
They can be responsible for tipping the balance. Look at the teenage child
killers in the US that were found to be in possession of tonnes of this
garbage, which was cited as a reason for their crimes.
>
> Do you have any evidence (even anecdotal) to support the suggestion that
> everyone who watches any BBC drama is a would-be criminal, pervert or
> racist?
See above.
>
> And are you *sure* that failing to show someone being struck down by
> almighty vengeance (or similar) is equivalent to heroifying them?
The fact that these kind of perverts are being shown in realistic situations
is herofying them.
pbo...@aol.com
Agamemnon wrote:
> <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1119853527.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes. It portrays under age sex as being common place.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, it doesn't. It portrays it as happening, but being far from
> >> >> > commonplace. If it were portraying it as commonplace, then Nancy
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope. The fact that's its on and is condoned is portraying it as
> >> >> commonplace
> >> >> and acceptable.
> >> >
> >> > This is one character out of the entire cast of this year's Dr. Who
> >> > (including all the extras populating London and Cardiff), right? You're
> >>
> >> This is one character that is being made an example of
> >
> > Hardly a good example based on the state her character is in.
>
> Not a good example to show to children, so she should not have been in it at
> all.
So kids shouldn't learn how not to behave through bad examples? We see
Jackie's life, what she's done, and the consequences in how she lives
as an adult. Consequences that are slightly more relevant than the risk
of having to lock your child in a labyrinth, might I add...
> > not it's acceptable, that depends wholly on the context of the story. A
> > Star Trek episode called "Business as Usual" focused heavily on arms
> > trading and the consequences it has for people drawn into conflicts as
> > a result, and it definitely did not imply acceptance of money-grubbing
> > arms dealers.
>
> Completely different situation. How many children are going to encounter gun
> runeers that are other children ?
That isn't the point being made, the point is that the subject is
presented as a morality play by centring the story around an immoral
act - it makes no logical sense to say that children's stories must be
qualitatively different in that regard.
> >> No. Time travel is not part of everyday life. Having kids is therefore
> >> unsuitable role modes should not be used.
> >
> > You still haven't given any reason for thinking that Jackie is likely
> > to be taken as, or is intended as, a role model for anyone - any kid
>
> Because half the girls in my year at school were just like her
Why was that - because they'd seen someone similar on television, or
because of the background in which they'd been brought up? You're being
highly simplistic in thinking "kids are like this, therefore it must be
TV's fault". In any case, look at the wider context of Dr. Who - unlike
a soap opera, the stay-at-home drudge isn't the focus of the overall
story. Fantastic things are happening all around, with a
time-travelling alien and his companion in the middle of it - do you
seriously expect kids to ignore all that and try to take after the
housewife?
and assuming
> they are now mothers the portrayal of Jackie as a common slipper reinforces
> that role model.
I'm not sure you're getting the idea of a role model quite right - a
role model isn't a character that reflects the way people act, it's a
character that they can aspire to emulate. Big difference. Showing
someone similar to themselves is not presenting them with a role model,
and indeed in Jackie's case it's showing them what might happen to them
if they behave like "common slippers".
The correct way of portraying that kind of character is
> through mockery and that is exactly how Vicky Pollard is portrayed in Little
> Britain, and it is though mockery that people are discouraged from behaving
> in that way. As I said before Drama is for Shakespeare. Real life is for
> Comedy.
You can say it as often as you like and it's still meaningless. Mockery
(otherwise known as satire, which is only one form of comedy) only
works in the first place if people already know what's being mocked and
why. Drama on the other hand, including Shakespeare and including
myths, makes use of real themes and often real situations (and you're
arguing below, real characters).
> > Parents' admonitions have been remarkably ineffective at preventing
> > delinquent behaviour - given the choice between warning a child about
> > drug use, say, by getting the parents to 'educate' them or showing them
> > a film like "Ray", I'd put more faith in the film having a positive
>
> Ah... yes. Romanticise drug taking why don't we.
I take it that not only have you not seen the film, you didn't read
what I acually wrote - try watching the film and see if you can come up
with any argument at all to suggest that it romanticises drug use in
any way. The point I was making was that, while it isn't a morality
play and doesn't have an overt anti-drugs agenda, it's one of the most
effective 'anti-drugs' films I've ever seen.
> >> > is and should remain a secular TV show?
> >>
> >> Secular ? Since when has devoting an entire episode to the creation,
> >> worship
> >> and downfall of a false Dalek God been secular.
> >
> > You do realise there's a difference between portraying religion and
> > being religious in nature, I suppose? I haven't seen the episode
> > myself, but the Emperor is apparently portrayed as a god and, as you
> > say, its downfall shown - that's hardly a message to inspire believers.
>
> Of course it is. For Dalek God read Satan.
Or read Dalek God. If you're coming at it from a Christian perspective
you can read any theological message into it you like, but the story is
not an allegory - you could as well read Dalek God as God, in which
case the story becomes a testament to the folly of religious belief.
> > Philip Pullman made an entire series of books based on the idea of
> > destroying God - they can hardly be called religious either.
>
> Destroying which God ?
The Christian one.
> > You do realise that mythological stories (Biblical or otherwise) aren't
> > actually historical accounts, don't you? There wasn't really a king
>
> You do actually realise that Oedipus was a real king of Thebes
Read on - a historical figure with the name may have existed. The
mythological one didn't, any more than the real Perseus killed a gorgon
or Dionysus.
and his
> palace actually exists as do the palaces of Jason, Agamemnon, Neleus,
> Theseus, and Minos.
The cave of Scylla exists, but that doesn't mean the monster once lived
there. In Abydos there is a tomb traditionally regarded as the Tomb of
Osiris, yet Osiris never existed and was not buried there. The tomb is
that of Djer, second king of the First Dynasty; his father Aha was
Egypt's first king, the role mythology assigns to Osiris.
>Now do go on and tell me that all of these people and
> their forefathers and descendents were part of a huge conspiracy theory by
> the ancient Greeks spanning over 1000 years to the time of Aeschylus,
> Sophocles and Euripides, and over 200 Greek city states all colluded
> together so that none of their histories would contradict
Most of these remains' names have nothing to do with the ancient
Greeks. The palace of Minos is a case in point - it was excavated in
the 19th Century and given that name lightheartedly after Minoan murals
were found featuring lots of bulls (also the reason the Minoans were
given that name - there's no evidence other than the location that this
was the Cretan civilisation of Greek myth). The palace itself was the
first to be excavated, but is only one of many - Minoan palaces were
like Roman villas rather than being the houses of the national ruler,
and indeed the evidence suggests that the Minoans had no overall king.
If they did he certainly didn't live in the 'Palace of Minos' - in the
'90s they discovered that the owner of that palace was a woman. The
same trend is found in other sites - they've been associated with
mythologised characters for ease of reference or public consumption,
but I don't know of any that have a traditional association with those
figures dating any further back than a couple of centuries. Simply put,
the palaces were named after the figures long after the myths were
created - they weren't the original homes of historical characters that
later became myths, though it isn't inconceivable that, like Perseus
and Orpheus, people with those names existed and those names were later
applied to otherwise unconnected mythological characters to tie the
myths to Greek history.
> > named Oedipus who married his mother and went blind as a result.
>
> Lots of Egyptian Pharaohs married their own mothers.
But, crucially, didn't go blind.
> > Minotaurs aren't a real result of liaisons between women and bulls (or
>
> Oh really.... tell me more. The Minotaur was Asterius the son of Minos.
>From Wikipedia: "The Minotaur was born to the queen of Crete,
Pasiphaë, after she mated with a sacred bull."
> > even gods disguised as bulls). For that matter, are you claiming that
> > such things as incest and bestiality no longer exist today?
> >
>
> And your point being.
A refutation of yours that such things are what people did "before they
became civilised".
> >>From what was posted at the start of this thread from the Independent,
> > all that was saying was that the topics covered in the new Dr. Who
> > haven't caused anyone to bat an eyelid - mentioning they exist in the
> > series is not criticism. So, what about answering the question - what
> > else would constitute 'proof'?
>
> Ratings are not proof of anything. How about reading what people are writing
> in this newsgroup.
Well, in the anti-camp we have you, Fairplay, Veritas, Fett, the Doctor
and someone else whose name I've forgotten. In the for and 'don't mind'
camps we have everyone else. It's not much of a representative sample
to be sure, but the majority seems to be in favour.
Philip Bowles
pbo...@aol.com
Agamemnon wrote:
> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> news:111985646...@despina.uk.clara.net...
> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
> >> <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1119840371.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Agamemnon wrote:
> >> >> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:111982728...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
> >> >> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
> >> >> >> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:111980997...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>
> Yes.
>
> > show depicts divine retribution?
>
> And divorces that act in question sufficiently far enough from realiry.
> Perseus slays a monstrous Gorgon rather than an ordinary woman.
You don't think the point of the story might have been different had he
killed an ordinary woman?
> >
> > Aren't there still kids' programmes that feature slightly dangerous
> > sports, and get away with this by flashing up messages saying "you must
> > wear the correct safety equipment". Do you think that these are a bad
> > influence because they don't show the gory details of what might happen
> > if they don't wear a crash helmet?
>
> Are these programmes encouraging people to go out and crash their bikes or
> to ride them with care. I think the latter.
So, when showing Jackie in Dr. Who it would be okay if they flagged her
up by flashing "Don't have underage sex" messages?
> > So you actually believe that we should have seen the father, and his
> > entire social group, wiped out for his crimes?
>
> I believe that the entire plot device should not even been allowed in the
> first place.
>
> If they wanted to cover the issue of under age sex then they should have
> done the story of Theseus when he kidnapped Helen when he was 50 years old
> and she was only 12, and subsequently ended up stuck to a seat in Hades even
> though he did not even intend touch her until she came of age.
Two points:
1. *Everyone* ended up in Hades, whatever their actions in life - it
was the underworld where the souls of the dead went, not an analogue to
the hell of Christian belief; everyone, good or bad, ended up in Hades,
so this is a 'morality tale' without a moral point. Do I detect in your
knowledge of mythology the simplified versions of 'mythology classes' -
the minotaur story with the bestiality removed, Hades = hell etc.?
2. Theseus was also the focal point, and indeed the hero, of other
myths - are you criticising them for focusing on a future child
molester? If you learned this story first and then learned about the
minotaur, would you cry foul because he was being held up as a role
model? Maybe mythology isn't a simple set of morality tales as you want
to believe.
> > And what makes you think that he and his mates haven't already gone off
> > to fight the war and subsequently been killed?
> >
> >> > Has it occurred to you
> >> > that Dr Who is not actually an Old Testament parable?
> >>
> >> Actually it has exactly the same purpose as the bible.
> >
> > Even though this is going dangerously close to a religious flamewar,
> > I'm gonna have to stop you there. Doctor Who is (or at least claims to
> > be) entertaining science-fiction. What do you believe the purpose of
> > the bible to be?
>
> The same as the purpose of the Iliad, except the Iliad is more poetic.
What's the purpose of Dr. Who? "Same as the Bible". What's the purpose
of the Bible? "Same as the Iliad". Is there any point asking the
purpose of the Iliad ("Same as The Song of Gilgamesh", perhaps), or do
you really not have an answer? Though in a sense the Old Testament and
the Iliad do serve a similar purpose - both aimed to mythologise their
history and legends in order to instil a sense of pride and identity,
and to make their people seem favoured by the gods/God. The analogy
with Dr. Who rather falls flat on that point, though.
> >
> >> >> > but a lot of the target audience seems happy with it.
> >> >>
> >> >> That has not been proven.
> >> >
> >> > What constitutes proof if not consistently high ratings? If parents
> >>
> >> People are watching it because its mostly science-fiction. They are not
> >> necessarily happed with every part of it as the articles in the
> >> Independent
> >> and the Sun show.
> >
> > Did you actually read the first post in this thread? You obviously
> > missed that my choice of subject line was sarcastic. The paragraph I
> > quoted ends with the following summary of the show:
> >
> > "...and no-one at all seems to mind."
>
> Ah... but no-one is actually someone
Even the Cyclops saw through that one eventually...
> >
> >> >> If you want realistic situations and characters then you only have to
> >> >> look in the street.
> >> >
> >> > So, instead of watching something like Dr. Who kids should be
> >> > introduced to the local drug-pushers, prostitutes and bums of their
> >> > neighbourhood?
> >>
> >> How about a morality tale.
> >
> > Sorry, TV entertainment is *not* meant to be a morality tale. Most of
>
> Of course it is,
What justifies this statement? Some TV entertainment is - Star Trek is
especially blatant on this point - and some can act as a morality tale
even when this isn't the primary intention - but why should all TV
entertainment have a moral message?
but most of what's on TV does not come close because its
> utter garbage.
Being utter garbage and being a morality tale aren't mutually
exclusive, you know - again, look at a lot of Star Trek...
> > the time justice is done, but teaching kids morality is partly the job
> > of the parents, and partly for the kids to reason out for themselves.
>
> Which is why it was not RTD's place to make it part of Doctor Who.
Yet you're arguing that he do just that, and given your above statement
that TV entertainment should be a morality tale, this is wholly
inconsistent. The fact that one character in the show was an underage
mother may raise moral issues, but it is not teaching kids morality,
any more than the fact that people die every week in Dr. Who teaches
them about the moral issues raised by killing people. These are there
to add to the stories and characters, not to engage in Bible-thumping.
> > Family TV would be *incredibly* bad watching if every time something
> > wrong had been done, we saw the wrongdoer burning in hell, in order to
> > keep hammering home the difference between right and wrong.
> >
>
> No. And who says they have to burn. Pushing rocks up hills, being tired to
> spinning wheels and having them immersed in water up to their necks but
> being unable to drink would make for far more interesting stories.
And what about having them torn apart by dogs, having to climb walls of
sharp rock that tear their flesh and excreting demons - if you want to
go for some really inventive and nasty punishments, you can hardly do
better than the Buddhist hell, where these examples come from. How they
get punished is hardly the point - the point is that it would make for
bad TV if divine punishment was involved all the time, indeed often if
it were involved at all. It's a lot better, and a far better teaching
experience, for the characters involved to make the moral decisions
rather than having an arbitrary set of rules foisted on them from
above.
On this subject, it strikes me that immorality often stems from the
fact that children aren't trained to think about moral issues for
themselves - in particular I've spent quite a lot of time talking to
junkies, and one thing that's come through in my experience is that
even intelligent drug users are characterised by thoughtlessness - for
instance, I've heard the most ludicrous attempts to explain the ban on
drug use as a conspiracy theory, with 'evidence' that can be refuted
with a moment's thought or five minutes' internet research. This is
because these people absorb what they're told without thinking about it
for themselves, and they spout stock line after tiresome stock line
without much apparent thought about what they're saying. The
consequences of their behaviour never seem to enter their minds because
they've been indoctrinated with the stock line that 'it's not harming
anyone', again without any thought of the effects they are actually
having on friends, family or people at various stages in the supply
train. More generally, rebellion against 'accepted' morality is in any
case often driven by frustration - that kids are being told not to do
things without being helped to understand why they shouldn't do them.
The moral of this story is that you can't teach kids morality by
bludgeoning them over the head with your values, you can only do that
with more considered situations that expose children to moral issues
and the real-life consequences of particular actions, and encourage
them to make up their own minds. If all you try to do is indoctrinate
them, you just create a mentality that is susceptible to indoctrination
- whether by your values or those you disapprove of.
Philip Bowles
pbo...@aol.com
>>> > there *is* an afterlife, I suspect that these immoral kids aren't
>>> > really
>>> > going to be put off wrongdoing by threats of divine retribution.
>>> > Surely
>>> > it's better to show the immediate, believable consequences of their
>>> > actions than to make the unjustified claim that they'll be punished
>>> > once
>>> > they're dead?
>>>
>>> The don't have the believe in an afterlife themselves. All they have to
>>> do
>>> is believe that the characters believe in an afterlife and have morals.
>>
>>
>> How will that help? If the show depicts someone getting punished in the
>> afterlife for their crimes, but the kid watching doesn't believe in the
>> afterlife, won't this be *less* of a deterrent than, say, showing the
>> character being socially rejected for their crime, or even being
>
>
>
>No. A higher power is required. A society which breeds someone who is
>immoral is not in a position to pass judgement.
While a 'higher power' responsible for that society's existence is?
Morality is the system that regulates the way people behave towards one
another in a society, and it is therefore the society that's affected
by the behaviour that is in a position to pass judgment.
Quite apart from the failure of religious justifications for morality
on the basis that people who don't believe in God can't be persuaded to
accept his rules, there's a subtler problem with the concept - so,
morality comes from God. Why should we follow God's rules, even if he
exists and Christian (or whatever) doctrine accurately reflects his
rules? Because otherwise we'll go to hell, perhaps? So, morality in the
religious sense becomes purely selfish; do good and you'll be rewarded,
otherwise you'll be punished.
How are God's rules justified? Did he pull them out of a hat? After
all, he could dictate anything he wants, and an arbitrary system is
without authority or the power to persuade, as well as providing no
sound basis for Earthly justice.
>> punished by an existing legal system?
>
>Everyone has known since the time of Aristophanes and the trial of >Socrates
>that the legal system is a sham.
This may astonish you, but the legal system has been developed and
refined somewhat in the past 2,500 years.
>> What more do you want? I know that you think that including the
>> character at all was wrong, but given the situation, how *would* you
>> have resolved it to send out what you believe to be the right message?
>
>
>The story should not have been done at all in that manner. They could have
>had an adult mother who put her child into adoption because of pervery who
>had to deny she was the child's mother because she had kidnapped him >from
>his adoptive parents.
But surely that would be to condone kidnapping and then lying about it.
Or does that argument only apply to sexual issues?
>>> > What do you mean, "Of course"? Where do you get this idea?
>
>
>> You haven't answered this bit. Why do you think that all serious works
>> of fiction should be moral propaganda?
And again no answer for Glyn, I note.
>>> >> Which is why it was not RTD's place to make it part of Doctor >Who.
>
>>> > ...which is why he *didn't* make morality part of Doctor Who. It's
>>
>>
>> Nope. That's not what he implied in Doctor Who confidential when he >>said
>> "get them while their young" in reference to his political and sexual
>> agenda.
He actually stated outright that he was referring to his sexual or
political agenda? Or maybe he was referring to the BBC wanting to snap
up ratings, or simply, as Eccleston said in his interview, to get them
used to good TV when young.
>> And are you *sure* that failing to show someone being struck down by
>> almighty vengeance (or similar) is equivalent to heroifying them?
>
>
>
>The fact that these kind of perverts are being shown in realistic situations
>is herofying them.
So everyone in the news is a hero, then? After all, they're all on
television in realistic situations.
Philip Bowles
pbo...@aol.com
pbo...@aol.com wrote:
> Agamemnon wrote:
> > <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1119853527.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> >
Another point of interest if you don't already know: Greece is a young
nation. It had no independent existence between the Roman conquest over
2,000 years ago and its liberation from the Turks within the last two
centuries. To add insult to injury, Greeks weren't even involved in
freeing their country - the rest if the Europe had just been exposed to
Greek relics like the Elgin Marbles and decided that Greece was such an
important part of Europe's cultural heritage that it deserved an
independent existence. Given the circumstances and the need to develop
a sense of national identity, it's hardly surprising they looked to
mythology dating back to the last time Greeks were independent for
inspiration in cultivating that identity. A lot of the mythological
associations with places and buildings stem from this period, I
believe, when the new Greek government renamed sites to reflect the
mythological past - there was quite an interesting programme on it a
year or so ago; might even have been on the BBC...
Philip Bowles
pbo...@aol.com
pbo...@aol.com wrote:
> Agamemnon wrote:
> > "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> > news:111985646...@despina.uk.clara.net...
> > > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
> > >> <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:1119840371.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >> > Agamemnon wrote:
> > >> >> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> > >> >> news:111982728...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
> > >> >> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
> > >> >> >> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> > >> >> >> news:111980997...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>
> > If they wanted to cover the issue of under age sex then they should have
> > done the story of Theseus when he kidnapped Helen when he was 50 years old
> > and she was only 12, and subsequently ended up stuck to a seat in Hades even
> > though he did not even intend touch her until she came of age.
>
> Two points:
>
> 1. *Everyone* ended up in Hades, whatever their actions in life - it
> was the underworld where the souls of the dead went, not an analogue to
> the hell of Christian belief; everyone, good or bad, ended up in Hades,
> so this is a 'morality tale' without a moral point. Do I detect in your
> knowledge of mythology the simplified versions of 'mythology classes' -
> the minotaur story with the bestiality removed, Hades = hell etc.?
>
> 2. Theseus was also the focal point, and indeed the hero, of other
> myths - are you criticising them for focusing on a future child
> molester? If you learned this story first and then learned about the
> minotaur, would you cry foul because he was being held up as a role
> model? Maybe mythology isn't a simple set of morality tales as you want
> to believe.
Actually, I just looked this story up to refresh my memory - in fact
Theseus' imprisonment in Hades (while he was still alive, and from
which he escaped - sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying there)
had nothing to do with the abduction (which was not of Helen, but of an
Amazon named Antiope), and indeed the 'punishment' for that abduction
was an Amazon army that he defeated. He was imprisoned for helping to
release Persephone from Hades. See "Theseus" in the Wikipedia for more
information.
Philip Bowles
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119913899.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Agamemnon wrote:
> <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1119853527.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes. It portrays under age sex as being common place.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, it doesn't. It portrays it as happening, but being far from
> >> >> > commonplace. If it were portraying it as commonplace, then Nancy
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope. The fact that's its on and is condoned is portraying it as
> >> >> commonplace
> >> >> and acceptable.
> >> >
> >> > This is one character out of the entire cast of this year's Dr. Who
> >> > (including all the extras populating London and Cardiff), right?
> >> > You're
> >>
> >> This is one character that is being made an example of
> >
> > Hardly a good example based on the state her character is in.
>
> Not a good example to show to children, so she should not have been in it
> at
> all.
<<<So kids shouldn't learn how not to behave through bad examples? We see
Jackie's life, what she's done, and the consequences in how she lives
as an adult. Consequences that are slightly more relevant than the risk
of having to lock your child in a labyrinth, might I add...>>>
They should not be presented with these type of icons at all, or any for of
social and moral depravity that they could perceive as being acceptable.
Kids shows should show kids being nice to each other and their parents. That
is the ideal that they should nurture and which has been lost on modern TV
emanating from the UK.
> > not it's acceptable, that depends wholly on the context of the story. A
> > Star Trek episode called "Business as Usual" focused heavily on arms
> > trading and the consequences it has for people drawn into conflicts as
> > a result, and it definitely did not imply acceptance of money-grubbing
> > arms dealers.
>
> Completely different situation. How many children are going to encounter
> gun
> runeers that are other children ?
<<<That isn't the point being made, the point is that the subject is
presented as a morality play by centring the story around an immoral
act - it makes no logical sense to say that children's stories must be
qualitatively different in that regard.>>>
Its a completely different situation. The story is centred around ADULTS !
> >> No. Time travel is not part of everyday life. Having kids is therefore
> >> unsuitable role modes should not be used.
> >
> > You still haven't given any reason for thinking that Jackie is likely
> > to be taken as, or is intended as, a role model for anyone - any kid
>
> Because half the girls in my year at school were just like her
<<<Why was that - because they'd seen someone similar on television, or>>>
Possibly considering all the soap garbage like Coronation Street and
Crossroads they could have been exposed to, which I didn't watch because it
was garbage and the former was racially offensive on top.
<<<because of the background in which they'd been brought up? You're being
highly simplistic in thinking "kids are like this, therefore it must be
TV's fault". In any case, look at the wider context of Dr. Who - unlike
a soap opera, the stay-at-home drudge isn't the focus of the overall
story. Fantastic things are happening all around, with a
time-travelling alien and his companion in the middle of it - do you
seriously expect kids to ignore all that and try to take after the
housewife????>>>
Fantastic things were happening until RTD tried to turn it into a soap.
and assuming
> they are now mothers the portrayal of Jackie as a common slipper
> reinforces
> that role model.
<<<I'm not sure you're getting the idea of a role model quite right - a
role model isn't a character that reflects the way people act, it's a
character that they can aspire to emulate. Big difference. Showing>>>
That is what an ideal role model should be, but a role model could be
anything you see on TV no matter how depraved. That is why moral depravity
has no place on children's TV or even adult TV for that matter.
<<<someone similar to themselves is not presenting them with a role model,
and indeed in Jackie's case it's showing them what might happen to them
if they behave like "common slippers".>>>
The correct way of portraying that kind of character is
> through mockery and that is exactly how Vicky Pollard is portrayed in
> Little
> Britain, and it is though mockery that people are discouraged from
> behaving
> in that way. As I said before Drama is for Shakespeare. Real life is for
> Comedy.
<<<You can say it as often as you like and it's still meaningless. Mockery
(otherwise known as satire, which is only one form of comedy) only
works in the first place if people already know what's being mocked and
why. Drama on the other hand, including Shakespeare and including
myths, makes use of real themes and often real situations (and you're
arguing below, real characters).>>>
Watch the Vicky Pollard scotches on Little Brittan. They are self
explanatorily.
> > Parents' admonitions have been remarkably ineffective at preventing
> > delinquent behaviour - given the choice between warning a child about
> > drug use, say, by getting the parents to 'educate' them or showing them
> > a film like "Ray", I'd put more faith in the film having a positive
>
> Ah... yes. Romanticise drug taking why don't we.
<<<I take it that not only have you not seen the film, you didn't read
what I acually wrote - try watching the film and see if you can come up
with any argument at all to suggest that it romanticises drug use in
any way. The point I was making was that, while it isn't a morality
play and doesn't have an overt anti-drugs agenda, it's one of the most
effective 'anti-drugs' films I've ever seen.>>>
If the film is going to cover drug taking I have no intention of watching
it.
> >> > is and should remain a secular TV show?
> >>
> >> Secular ? Since when has devoting an entire episode to the creation,
> >> worship
> >> and downfall of a false Dalek God been secular.
> >
> > You do realise there's a difference between portraying religion and
> > being religious in nature, I suppose? I haven't seen the episode
> > myself, but the Emperor is apparently portrayed as a god and, as you
> > say, its downfall shown - that's hardly a message to inspire believers.
>
> Of course it is. For Dalek God read Satan.
<<<Or read Dalek God. If you're coming at it from a Christian perspective
you can read any theological message into it you like, but the story is
not an allegory - you could as well read Dalek God as God, in which
case the story becomes a testament to the folly of religious belief.>>>
In the Christian perspective the Dalek God was Satan.
> > Philip Pullman made an entire series of books based on the idea of
> > destroying God - they can hardly be called religious either.
>
> Destroying which God ?
<<<The Christian one.>>>
Makes no difference to me. I'm polytheistic.
> > You do realise that mythological stories (Biblical or otherwise) aren't
> > actually historical accounts, don't you? There wasn't really a king
>
> You do actually realise that Oedipus was a real king of Thebes
<<<Read on - a historical figure with the name may have existed. The
mythological one didn't, any more than the real Perseus killed a gorgon
or Dionysus.>>>
The historical figure was what the mythical one was based on and he killed
someone identified as Medusa and someone else identified as Dionysus, and
more about him later.
and his
> palace actually exists as do the palaces of Jason, Agamemnon, Neleus,
> Theseus, and Minos.
<<<The cave of Scylla exists, but that doesn't mean the monster once lived
there. In Abydos there is a tomb traditionally regarded as the Tomb of
Osiris, yet Osiris never existed and was not buried there. The tomb is
that of Djer, second king of the First Dynasty; his father Aha was
Egypt's first king, the role mythology assigns to Osiris.>>>
>Now do go on and tell me that all of these people and
> their forefathers and descendents were part of a huge conspiracy theory by
> the ancient Greeks spanning over 1000 years to the time of Aeschylus,
> Sophocles and Euripides, and over 200 Greek city states all colluded
> together so that none of their histories would contradict
<<<Most of these remains' names have nothing to do with the ancient
Greeks. The palace of Minos is a case in point - it was excavated in>>>
Nonsense. The place names recorded in Linear B and even Linear A are all
ancient Greek and the places in the inscriptions are where the ancient
Greeks said they were.
<<<the 19th Century and given that name lightheartedly after Minoan murals
were found featuring lots of bulls (also the reason the Minoans were
given that name - there's no evidence other than the location that this
was the Cretan civilisation of Greek myth). The palace itself was the>>>
It also dates from the same period as Minos I who lived in 1406 BC according
to Jerome's Chronicon (Roger Pearse et al. translation 2005).
<<<first to be excavated, but is only one of many - Minoan palaces were
like Roman villas rather than being the houses of the national ruler,
and indeed the evidence suggests that the Minoans had no overall king.
If they did he certainly didn't live in the 'Palace of Minos' - in the
'90s they discovered that the owner of that palace was a woman. The>>>
LOL.... Minos had a wife.
<<<same trend is found in other sites - they've been associated with
mythologised characters for ease of reference or public consumption,
but I don't know of any that have a traditional association with those
figures dating any further back than a couple of centuries. Simply put,>>>
More nonsense. The palaces were only discovered because of references by
Pausanius, Starbo, Homer et al. who associated them with 17th to 12th
century Greek kings and complete dynasties over 2000 years ago.
<<<the palaces were named after the figures long after the myths were
created - they weren't the original homes of historical characters that>>>
No. All of these sites continued to be inhabited by the decedents of the
kings in question until well into classical times and these people showed
visitors around and pointed out palaces, temples and burial sites..
<<<later became myths, though it isn't inconceivable that, like Perseus
and Orpheus, people with those names existed and those names were later
applied to otherwise unconnected mythological characters to tie the
myths to Greek history.>>>
Your conspiracy theory wont won't work. The biological decedents of the
ancient Greek heroes were living and ruling Greek city state will into the
Hellenistic period. If your argument is that these kings didn't exist then
you might as well clam that Julius Caesar didn't exist either and all his
decedents were made up. Why don't you also tell us that the line of decent
of British royal family before Queen Victoria was made up retrospectively by
Winston Churchill as war propaganda.
> > named Oedipus who married his mother and went blind as a result.
>
> Lots of Egyptian Pharaohs married their own mothers.
<<<But, crucially, didn't go blind.>>>
Read Herodotus book 2. They did. Two examples are given.
> > Minotaurs aren't a real result of liaisons between women and bulls (or
>
> Oh really.... tell me more. The Minotaur was Asterius the son of Minos.
<<<>From Wikipedia: "The Minotaur was born to the queen of Crete,
Pasiphaė, after she mated with a sacred bull." >>>
The sacred bull was her husband.
> > even gods disguised as bulls). For that matter, are you claiming that
> > such things as incest and bestiality no longer exist today?
> >
>
> And your point being.
<<<A refutation of yours that such things are what people did "before they
became civilised".>>>
> >>From what was posted at the start of this thread from the Independent,
> > all that was saying was that the topics covered in the new Dr. Who
> > haven't caused anyone to bat an eyelid - mentioning they exist in the
> > series is not criticism. So, what about answering the question - what
> > else would constitute 'proof'?
>
> Ratings are not proof of anything. How about reading what people are
> writing
> in this newsgroup.
<<<Well, in the anti-camp we have you, Fairplay, Veritas, Fett, the Doctor
and someone else whose name I've forgotten. In the for and 'don't mind'
camps we have everyone else. It's not much of a representative sample
to be sure, but the majority seems to be in favour.>>>
No. The majority is undecided.
<<<Philip Bowles>>>
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119931337.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greece existed as a unified political entity over 3500 years ago under the
Minoans and Mycenaean's. The people called themselves Achaeans and Danaioi
and both of these names referring to the same people have been found in
Hittite and Egyptian inscriptions. The Greek religion unified the Greek
nation since the the time of Cecrpos and Lycaon who established the worship
of Zeus in about 1500 BC. The Greek language was also written down from this
time and inscriptions bearing the names of ALL of the Greek Gods, including
Zeus, Dionysus, Poseidon and Athena have been found at Mycenaean's sites
dating back to before 1250 BC. The Greeks adopted the unifying name of
Hellenes from at least 776 BC when the ancient Olympics were founded, where
athletes were only allowed to take part if they could prove their Greek
ancestry on both sides of their family back to at least 5 generations. In
480 BC the Greeks were unified against the Persian and in 336 BC Alexander
of Macedon was made President of the Hellenic Union and then went on to
conquer the world and the resulting Greek empire lasted 300 years. The
Christian Greek Byzantine empire separated from Rome in about 300 AD and
lasted over 1200 years (900 of which where Greek was the language of
government) making it logiest lasting empire in Europe. The Turks were
occupiers of Greece for less time that the Italians, and let me remind you
that Italy was not even a unified state until the late 1800's nearly 50
years after Greece won it's liberation struggle. The Hellenic Republic
looked to its Byzantine Christian roots when it declared independence
because it was through Christianity that the Greek identity and cultural
heritage was preserved, so cut the crap.
>
> Philip Bowles
>
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119927910.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>> > In an age when an increasing number of people aren't convinced that
>>>> > there *is* an afterlife, I suspect that these immoral kids aren't
>>>> > really
>>>> > going to be put off wrongdoing by threats of divine retribution.
>>>> > Surely
>>>> > it's better to show the immediate, believable consequences of their
>>>> > actions than to make the unjustified claim that they'll be punished
>>>> > once
>>>> > they're dead?
>>>>
>>>> The don't have the believe in an afterlife themselves. All they have
>>>> to
>>>> do
>>>> is believe that the characters believe in an afterlife and have
>>>> morals.
>>>
>>>
>>> How will that help? If the show depicts someone getting punished in the
>>> afterlife for their crimes, but the kid watching doesn't believe in the
>>> afterlife, won't this be *less* of a deterrent than, say, showing the
>>> character being socially rejected for their crime, or even being
>>
>>
>>
>>No. A higher power is required. A society which breeds someone who is
>>immoral is not in a position to pass judgement.
>
> While a 'higher power' responsible for that society's existence is?
Do you want me to name the Gods or what ?
> Morality is the system that regulates the way people behave towards one
> another in a society, and it is therefore the society that's affected
> by the behaviour that is in a position to pass judgment.
Not if its not a perfectly ideal moral society.
>
> Quite apart from the failure of religious justifications for morality
> on the basis that people who don't believe in God can't be persuaded to
Erm... Which God are you talking about now ?
> accept his rules, there's a subtler problem with the concept - so,
> morality comes from God. Why should we follow God's rules, even if he
> exists and Christian (or whatever) doctrine accurately reflects his
> rules? Because otherwise we'll go to hell, perhaps? So, morality in the
> religious sense becomes purely selfish; do good and you'll be rewarded,
> otherwise you'll be punished.
>
> How are God's rules justified? Did he pull them out of a hat? After
> all, he could dictate anything he wants, and an arbitrary system is
> without authority or the power to persuade, as well as providing no
> sound basis for Earthly justice.
Who is talking about rules from God ? Which God ?
Each God passes judgement according to his whim. Read Euthyphro by Plato, to
find out about piety and after that read Hesiods, Works and Days for divine
retribution.
>
>>> punished by an existing legal system?
>>
>>Everyone has known since the time of Aristophanes and the trial of
>> >Socrates
>>that the legal system is a sham.
>
> This may astonish you, but the legal system has been developed and
> refined somewhat in the past 2,500 years.
This might astonish you, but essentially its still the same. Read some
Aristophanes, the Wasps for instance.
>
>>> What more do you want? I know that you think that including the
>>> character at all was wrong, but given the situation, how *would* you
>>> have resolved it to send out what you believe to be the right message?
>>
>>
>>The story should not have been done at all in that manner. They could have
>>had an adult mother who put her child into adoption because of pervery who
>>had to deny she was the child's mother because she had kidnapped him >from
>>his adoptive parents.
>
> But surely that would be to condone kidnapping and then lying about it.
It would not be the kidnapping she was lying about. The kid would have known
it was kidnapped and it could have been kidnapped form an orphanage after
its adoptive pares died in a bombing raid. There you go. The story of Annie
could have been used as the basis of the plot and there wad nothing wrong
with that.
> Or does that argument only apply to sexual issues?
And the Doctors abduction and captivity on the Games Station was not
kidnapping was it ?
>
>>>> > What do you mean, "Of course"? Where do you get this idea?
>>
>>
>>> You haven't answered this bit. Why do you think that all serious works
>>> of fiction should be moral propaganda?
Works of fiction are not about portraying real life. They are about ideals.
Real life is for the history books.
>
> And again no answer for Glyn, I note.
>
>>>> >> Which is why it was not RTD's place to make it part of Doctor >Who.
>>
>>>> > ...which is why he *didn't* make morality part of Doctor Who. It's
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. That's not what he implied in Doctor Who confidential when he
>>> >>said
>>> "get them while their young" in reference to his political and sexual
>>> agenda.
>
> He actually stated outright that he was referring to his sexual or
> political agenda? Or maybe he was referring to the BBC wanting to snap
Yes, that's what he did.
> up ratings, or simply, as Eccleston said in his interview, to get them
> used to good TV when young.
Get them while their young, because that when they are at their most
suggestive is what he said (or something like that).
>
>>> And are you *sure* that failing to show someone being struck down by
>>> almighty vengeance (or similar) is equivalent to heroifying them?
>>
>>
>>
>>The fact that these kind of perverts are being shown in realistic
>>situations
>>is herofying them.
>
> So everyone in the news is a hero, then? After all, they're all on
> television in realistic situations.
The news is real life. Drama is not supposed to portray real life. Its
supposed to portray ideals.
>
> Philip Bowles
>
pbo...@aol.com
Would doing so answer the question? I doubt it.
> > Morality is the system that regulates the way people behave towards one
> > another in a society, and it is therefore the society that's affected
> > by the behaviour that is in a position to pass judgment.
>
> Not if its not a perfectly ideal moral society.
News for you: we don't live in a perfectly moral society. If we did, we
wouldn't need a concept of morality. Believe it or not, we aren't
living outside Plato's cave in the world of ideal forms.
> >
> > Quite apart from the failure of religious justifications for morality
> > on the basis that people who don't believe in God can't be persuaded to
>
> Erm... Which God are you talking about now ?
Whichever you like, or whatever else you consider a 'higher power'
laying down moral laws. An aggregate of polytheistic gods, if that
makes you happier.
> > accept his rules, there's a subtler problem with the concept - so,
> > morality comes from God. Why should we follow God's rules, even if he
> > exists and Christian (or whatever) doctrine accurately reflects his
> > rules? Because otherwise we'll go to hell, perhaps? So, morality in the
> > religious sense becomes purely selfish; do good and you'll be rewarded,
> > otherwise you'll be punished.
> >
> > How are God's rules justified? Did he pull them out of a hat? After
> > all, he could dictate anything he wants, and an arbitrary system is
> > without authority or the power to persuade, as well as providing no
> > sound basis for Earthly justice.
>
> Who is talking about rules from God ? Which God ?
Then use the phrase 'higher power'. Obfuscation is no substitute for
debate - you still haven't addressed the point. How are moral rules
justified when derived from a higher power?
> Each God passes judgement according to his whim.
Which has the force of morality why, exactly? What makes such things as
underage sex, sleeping around, drug abuse or homosexuality wrong on
this basis, and is a list of the gods' current whims written down
anywhere? Considering ancient Greek proclivities (including those of
their gods), it seems unlikely that any of these would be on the list,
save perhaps for adultery.
Read Euthyphro by Plato, to
> find out about piety and after that read Hesiods, Works and Days for divine
> retribution.
Read Kant's Groundwork on the Metaphysics of Morals to find out about
moral reasoning and moral authority.
> >
> >>> punished by an existing legal system?
> >>
> >>Everyone has known since the time of Aristophanes and the trial of
> >> >Socrates
> >>that the legal system is a sham.
> >
> > This may astonish you, but the legal system has been developed and
> > refined somewhat in the past 2,500 years.
>
> This might astonish you, but essentially its still the same.
Which part of its essence? Such new-fangled features as the burden of
proof or trial by jury? The separation of political and judicial powers
whose absence allowed Socrates to be tried as, effectively, a
troublemaker in the first place?
Read some
> Aristophanes, the Wasps for instance.
How does referring to a document several thousand years old support the
contention that the modern legal system is basically unchanged?
> >
> >>> What more do you want? I know that you think that including the
> >>> character at all was wrong, but given the situation, how *would* you
> >>> have resolved it to send out what you believe to be the right message?
> >>
> >>
> >>The story should not have been done at all in that manner. They could have
> >>had an adult mother who put her child into adoption because of pervery who
> >>had to deny she was the child's mother because she had kidnapped him >from
> >>his adoptive parents.
> >
> > But surely that would be to condone kidnapping and then lying about it.
>
> It would not be the kidnapping she was lying about.
Ah, so just the kidnapping would be condoned. That makes it all right
then.
> > Or does that argument only apply to sexual issues?
>
> And the Doctors abduction and captivity on the Games Station was not
> kidnapping was it ?
I haven't seen that episode yet, but then I'm not the one arguing that
making something central to the story is to condone it.
> >
> >>>> > What do you mean, "Of course"? Where do you get this idea?
> >>
> >>
> >>> You haven't answered this bit. Why do you think that all serious works
> >>> of fiction should be moral propaganda?
>
> Works of fiction are not about portraying real life. They are about ideals.
Again a blanket opinion without supporting reasons. So 1984 should
never have been written because the society it envisages is anything
but ideal, right?
> Real life is for the history books.
That's not the same thing as saying that works with a basis in real
life are unsuitable for fiction - alternate history, for starters. The
very definition of science fiction, for instance, is fiction with a
basis or story elements grounded in some form of science - tying it to
the real world. The sort of fiction you're talking about is fantasy,
and is only one genre, yet even that need not be completely divorced
from the real world.
> > up ratings, or simply, as Eccleston said in his interview, to get them
> > used to good TV when young.
>
> Get them while their young, because that when they are at their most
> suggestive is what he said (or something like that).
"or something like that". Sounds as though there's a deal of
interpretation going on here, but since I haven't seen the interview I
can't comment any further on this.
Philip Bowles
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119926498.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Agamemnon wrote:
>> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
>> news:111985646...@despina.uk.clara.net...
>> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
>> >> <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1119840371.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Agamemnon wrote:
>> >> >> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:111982728...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>> >> >> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
>> >> >> >> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:111980997...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> > show depicts divine retribution?
>>
>> And divorces that act in question sufficiently far enough from realiry.
>> Perseus slays a monstrous Gorgon rather than an ordinary woman.
>
> You don't think the point of the story might have been different had he
> killed an ordinary woman?
The morality would have been diffrent. Perseus would have been hated because
he killed a woman.
>
>> >
>> > Aren't there still kids' programmes that feature slightly dangerous
>> > sports, and get away with this by flashing up messages saying "you must
>> > wear the correct safety equipment". Do you think that these are a bad
>> > influence because they don't show the gory details of what might happen
>> > if they don't wear a crash helmet?
>>
>> Are these programmes encouraging people to go out and crash their bikes
>> or
>> to ride them with care. I think the latter.
>
> So, when showing Jackie in Dr. Who it would be okay if they flagged her
> up by flashing "Don't have underage sex" messages?
Jackie should NOT HAVE BEEN SHOWN AT ALL !
>
>> > So you actually believe that we should have seen the father, and his
>> > entire social group, wiped out for his crimes?
>>
>> I believe that the entire plot device should not even been allowed in the
>> first place.
>>
>> If they wanted to cover the issue of under age sex then they should have
>> done the story of Theseus when he kidnapped Helen when he was 50 years
>> old
>> and she was only 12, and subsequently ended up stuck to a seat in Hades
>> even
>> though he did not even intend touch her until she came of age.
>
> Two points:
>
> 1. *Everyone* ended up in Hades, whatever their actions in life - it
Not everyone in Hades was punished. Read Aristophanes Frogs which discusses
both issues, Hades and Drama.
> was the underworld where the souls of the dead went, not an analogue to
> the hell of Christian belief; everyone, good or bad, ended up in Hades,
> so this is a 'morality tale' without a moral point. Do I detect in your
> knowledge of mythology the simplified versions of 'mythology classes' -
> the minotaur story with the bestiality removed, Hades = hell etc.?
The region of Tartarus in Hades real was where people were punished.
The bestiality in the minotaur story was a reason why the Minotaur was
hated.
>
> 2. Theseus was also the focal point, and indeed the hero, of other
> myths - are you criticising them for focusing on a future child
> molester? If you learned this story first and then learned about the
He didn't actually molest anyone, but the mere thought that he might saw to
his punishment.
> minotaur, would you cry foul because he was being held up as a role
> model? Maybe mythology isn't a simple set of morality tales as you want
> to believe.
In the Minotaur story he is NOT being portrayed as a sexual devient.
The Greek Drama Cycles always started with the hero battling adversity,
overcoming it and then getting too big for his boots and being punished for
his arrogance. That is how the Greek myths worked in civilising people. You
were never supposed to behave like Theseus because Theseus was imperfect and
his fate was to be banished from his own city and to be pushed over a cliff,
and through that you were made aware of you own imperfections so you could
do something to remove them.
>
>> > And what makes you think that he and his mates haven't already gone off
>> > to fight the war and subsequently been killed?
>> >
>> >> > Has it occurred to you
>> >> > that Dr Who is not actually an Old Testament parable?
>> >>
>> >> Actually it has exactly the same purpose as the bible.
>> >
>> > Even though this is going dangerously close to a religious flamewar,
>> > I'm gonna have to stop you there. Doctor Who is (or at least claims to
>> > be) entertaining science-fiction. What do you believe the purpose of
>> > the bible to be?
>>
>> The same as the purpose of the Iliad, except the Iliad is more poetic.
>
> What's the purpose of Dr. Who? "Same as the Bible". What's the purpose
> of the Bible? "Same as the Iliad". Is there any point asking the
> purpose of the Iliad ("Same as The Song of Gilgamesh", perhaps), or do
> you really not have an answer? Though in a sense the Old Testament and
See what I said above about Greek Drama.
> the Iliad do serve a similar purpose - both aimed to mythologise their
> history and legends in order to instil a sense of pride and identity,
> and to make their people seem favoured by the gods/God. The analogy
> with Dr. Who rather falls flat on that point, though.
And Ecclestons line "Humans, you never cease to amaze me" is there for what
purpose then ?
>> >
>> >> >> > but a lot of the target audience seems happy with it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That has not been proven.
>> >> >
>> >> > What constitutes proof if not consistently high ratings? If parents
>> >>
>> >> People are watching it because its mostly science-fiction. They are
>> >> not
>> >> necessarily happed with every part of it as the articles in the
>> >> Independent
>> >> and the Sun show.
>> >
>> > Did you actually read the first post in this thread? You obviously
>> > missed that my choice of subject line was sarcastic. The paragraph I
>> > quoted ends with the following summary of the show:
>> >
>> > "...and no-one at all seems to mind."
>>
>> Ah... but no-one is actually someone
>
> Even the Cyclops saw through that one eventually...
After it was too late.
>
>> >
>> >> >> If you want realistic situations and characters then you only have
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> look in the street.
>> >> >
>> >> > So, instead of watching something like Dr. Who kids should be
>> >> > introduced to the local drug-pushers, prostitutes and bums of their
>> >> > neighbourhood?
>> >>
>> >> How about a morality tale.
>> >
>> > Sorry, TV entertainment is *not* meant to be a morality tale. Most of
>>
>> Of course it is,
>
> What justifies this statement? Some TV entertainment is - Star Trek is
> especially blatant on this point - and some can act as a morality tale
> even when this isn't the primary intention - but why should all TV
> entertainment have a moral message?
I have no objection to ballroom dancing and pop music shows being shown as
well. Nor to nature shows, documentaries and history programmes. See.
>
> but most of what's on TV does not come close because its
>> utter garbage.
>
> Being utter garbage and being a morality tale aren't mutually
> exclusive, you know - again, look at a lot of Star Trek...
Are you implying that Star Trek is garbage ?
>
>> > the time justice is done, but teaching kids morality is partly the job
>> > of the parents, and partly for the kids to reason out for themselves.
>>
>> Which is why it was not RTD's place to make it part of Doctor Who.
>
> Yet you're arguing that he do just that, and given your above statement
> that TV entertainment should be a morality tale, this is wholly
But NOT A SOAP OPERA which is an immorality tale !
> inconsistent. The fact that one character in the show was an underage
> mother may raise moral issues, but it is not teaching kids morality,
> any more than the fact that people die every week in Dr. Who teaches
> them about the moral issues raised by killing people. These are there
> to add to the stories and characters, not to engage in Bible-thumping.
The don't add to the show except to ruin it by bringing it down to
commonality.
>
>> > Family TV would be *incredibly* bad watching if every time something
>> > wrong had been done, we saw the wrongdoer burning in hell, in order to
>> > keep hammering home the difference between right and wrong.
>> >
>>
>> No. And who says they have to burn. Pushing rocks up hills, being tired
>> to
>> spinning wheels and having them immersed in water up to their necks but
>> being unable to drink would make for far more interesting stories.
>
> And what about having them torn apart by dogs, having to climb walls of
> sharp rock that tear their flesh and excreting demons - if you want to
> go for some really inventive and nasty punishments, you can hardly do
> better than the Buddhist hell, where these examples come from. How they
> get punished is hardly the point - the point is that it would make for
> bad TV if divine punishment was involved all the time, indeed often if
> it were involved at all. It's a lot better, and a far better teaching
> experience, for the characters involved to make the moral decisions
> rather than having an arbitrary set of rules foisted on them from
> above.
Characters can make moral decisions only in Socratic style dialogues where
all the pros and cons are discussed in detail. RTD's Doctor Who has never
approached anything like that. RTD's Doctor Who is trying to show
stereotypes as they would behave in the real world whose decisions are not
questioned and that is wrong. In drama you do not have time to question
every decision so everything must appeal to a superior divine morality.
Why should children from a middle class background be exposed to drug
dealing and sexual perverts and deviant attitudes on these issues they could
latch on to in Doctor Who when they would never be exposed to them in their
own community, and when they were grown up they could learn about these
issued PROPERLY with through discussion. If it aint broke, then don't fix
it. If RTD wants to preach his agenda then he can do it to the sick and not
to the healthy. You don't expose someone to a potentially deadly vaccine to
a bio warfare virus it there is very little chance of the virus being used.
>
> Philip Bowles
>
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119931952.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Nope. He defeated the Amazon army years earlier after he abducted an Amazon
to be his wife. When he married Phaedra the daughter of Deucalion the son of
Minos the Amazons invaded and the Amazon was killed. Soon after that Phaedra
hung herself alter she had an affair with Theseus son by the Amazon and he
was killed by divine retribution, and that's why Theseus and Perithous
decided to abduct Helen and Persephone to marry, which ended him up in Hades
when he was caught.
>
> Philip Bowles
>
Glyn
> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> news:11199095...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
> >> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> >> news:111989816...@echo.uk.clara.net...
> >> >> done the story of Theseus when he kidnapped Helen when he was 50 years
> >> >> old and she was only 12
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, but that story's already been done - we want a *new* story.
> >>
> >> So have stories about underage mothers, so why include them in Doctor Who
> >> where they don't belong.
> >
> > I don't remember there being any stories about underage mothers and
> > nanogenes set in WWII. Is that original enough for you?
>
> There have been stories about underage mothers. Stop trying to wriggle out
> of to by linking it with nanogenes.
My point about the nanogenes, or any of the other plot devices, is that
they're new ideas, leading to an original story. Retreading Theseus and
Helen would *not* be an original story.
> >> >> >> Daleks are analogous to drug-pushers, prostitutes
> >> >> >> and bums and they all get wiped out.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How on earth are you going to make an analogy between Daleks and the
> >> >> > usual menaces to society? And more importantly, how is a 45-minute
> >> >> > science fiction show meant to make that analogy?
> >> >>
> >> >> Didn't they already do it in Evil of the Daleks with the Human Factor?
> >> >
> >> > The made an analogy between Daleks and drugdealers, prostitutes and
> >> > bums? I haven't listened to the surviving recordings, but I find that
> >> > unlikely.
> >>
> >> The Dakeks try to make themselves stronger with the Human Factor but it ends
> >> up driving them mad.
> >
> > And that is an analogy with (specifically) drugdealers, prostitutes and
> > bums or (generally) the usual menaces to society how, exactly? By
> > suggesting that the evil in society is a result of being injected with
> > the Dalek Factor?
> >
> > I'm working from the BBC Who site's summary of the episode here, so you
> > may have to explain the relevance, and indeed the original plot, in more
> > detail.
>
> I've said all I need to say.
Well, you've not convinced anyone, so either you need to say more, or
the analogy with drug-pushers, prostitutes, bums or society's ills isn't
a very good one.
> >> Most of the BBC's output is one huge ego
> >> trip for the programme makers who think all their 5th rate cop shows and
> >> so-caleld "dramas" about single parents, drug dealers, adultery, race
> >> relations and social outcasts are the height of culture. These shows aren't
> >> watched by anyone except the would-be criminals, perverts and racists they
> >> make into heroes, because they're boring badly written crap, which
> >> encourages acceptance of moral depravitude by acclimatising people to it.
> >
> > Well if these shows aren't watched by anyone except the morally bankrupt
> > anyway, then they can't be responsible for a decline.
>
> They can be responsible for tipping the balance. Look at the teenage child
> killers in the US that were found to be in possession of tonnes of this
> garbage, which was cited as a reason for their crimes.
Usually the claim is that they were found in possession of much nastier
material. Like splatter horror movies about serial killers - which many
people had agreed are probably harmful, and slapped a high certificate
on them.
> > Do you have any evidence (even anecdotal) to support the suggestion that
> > everyone who watches any BBC drama is a would-be criminal, pervert or
> > racist?
>
> See above.
No, I see no justification up there. I watched DW, a BBC drama series.
Does that make me a would-be criminal, pervert or racist - or will it
turn me into one? You watched it (if only so that you could then
present us with your righteous disgust, like a reviewer for capalert).
Does that make you a would-be criminal, pervert or racist?
> > And are you *sure* that failing to show someone being struck down by
> > almighty vengeance (or similar) is equivalent to heroifying them?
>
> The fact that these kind of perverts are being shown in realistic situations
> is herofying them.
How many times do we have to go over this? Claiming that something
happens (especially when that thing really does happen) is *not* the
same as claiming that it's admirable or respectable.
pbo...@aol.com
> pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>> Agamemnon wrote:
>> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1119853527.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
All of which is very interestring, but bears no relation to the
comments I made, which merely stated that Greece had had no independent
existence (unified or otherwise) since Roman times - pre-Roman events
have no bearing on that, so I'm unsure why you bring them up.
> In
>480 BC the Greeks were unified against the Persian and in 336 BC Alexander
>of Macedon was made President of the Hellenic Union and then went on to
>conquer the world and the resulting Greek empire lasted 300 years. The
>Christian Greek Byzantine empire separated from Rome in about 300 AD
Granted, but while the religion was Greek Orthodox and many of the
customs consciously based on those of Hellenistic Greence in later
centuries the empire wasn't Greek nor was it controlled from Greece,
which was merely one component state.
and
>lasted over 1200 years (900 of which where Greek was the language of
government) making it logiest lasting empire in Europe. The Turks were
occupiers of Greece for less time that the Italians,
Nevertheless, Greece was under post-Byzantine occupation for the best
part of 600 years; even if you regard the Byzantine Empire as a Greek
Empire, that merely pushes the timeline for Greece's independence
forward by several centuries - eveb 600 years is a long time to remain
without sovereignty.
> and let me remind you
>that Italy was not even a unified state until the late 1800's nearly 50
>years after Greece won it's liberation struggle.
You needn't, since I'm fully aware of the fact, but that hardly relates
to the fact that Greece was not itself independent, either as a single
state or several.
>The Hellenic Republic
>looked to its Byzantine Christian roots when it declared independence
>because it was through Christianity that the Greek identity and cultural
>heritage was preserved, so cut the crap.
As I said in the above, the information on the name changes to various
sites came from a documentary during the Olympic year, hence my
qualifier "I believe" - if you've got a better reference than "cut the
crap", let's hear it. They were hardly going to associate pre-Byzantine
remains with parts of their Byzantine history, were they? I don't deny
that they did look to their Byzantine heritage, but in reconstructing
the scope of Greek history they looked further back to the Hellenic era
as well. Sites whose names or history had been forgotten over the
centuries of occupation were an obvious focal point, as well as being
visible symbols of Greek identity.
Philip Bowles
Glyn
> >>>> do is believe that the characters believe in an afterlife and have
> >>>> morals.
> >>>
> >>> How will that help? If the show depicts someone getting punished in the
> >>> afterlife for their crimes, but the kid watching doesn't believe in the
> >>> afterlife, won't this be *less* of a deterrent than, say, showing the
> >>> character being socially rejected for their crime, or even being
> >>
> >>No. A higher power is required. A society which breeds someone who is
> >>immoral is not in a position to pass judgement.
> >
> > While a 'higher power' responsible for that society's existence is?
>
> Do you want me to name the Gods or what ?
I read that question as rhetorical - not as "who/what is the higher
power?".
> > Morality is the system that regulates the way people behave towards one
> > another in a society, and it is therefore the society that's affected
> > by the behaviour that is in a position to pass judgment.
>
> Not if its not a perfectly ideal moral society.
And any society that's not a perfectly ideal moral society will also
contain people who remain unconvinced by laws pertaining to be from a
higher power. Which of the following are going to persuade *more*
people?
Follow this list of what is accepted behaviour, because failing to do
so will result in us punishing you (and possibly attempting to
rehabilitate you) like we did with the last rulebreaker.
or
Follow this list of what is accepted behaviour, because $DEITY says so
and will otherwise punish you in some physically improbable manner many
several years later.
> > Quite apart from the failure of religious justifications for morality
> > on the basis that people who don't believe in God can't be persuaded to
>
> Erm... Which God are you talking about now ?
>
> > accept his rules, there's a subtler problem with the concept - so,
> > morality comes from God. Why should we follow God's rules, even if he
> > exists and Christian (or whatever) doctrine accurately reflects his
> > rules? Because otherwise we'll go to hell, perhaps? So, morality in the
> > religious sense becomes purely selfish; do good and you'll be rewarded,
> > otherwise you'll be punished.
> >
> > How are God's rules justified? Did he pull them out of a hat? After
> > all, he could dictate anything he wants, and an arbitrary system is
> > without authority or the power to persuade, as well as providing no
> > sound basis for Earthly justice.
>
> Who is talking about rules from God ? Which God ?
You were the one that brought up "a higher power". It doesn't matter
*which* God, the argument still applies.
> Each God passes judgement according to his whim.
And how is that helpful to society? "Do as I say or I'll punish you" is
less effective than society figuring out for themselves a system of
justice that works.
> >>The story should not have been done at all in that manner. They could have
> >>had an adult mother who put her child into adoption because of pervery who
> >>had to deny she was the child's mother because she had kidnapped him >from
> >>his adoptive parents.
> >
> > But surely that would be to condone kidnapping and then lying about it.
>
> It would not be the kidnapping she was lying about. The kid would have known
> it was kidnapped and it could have been kidnapped form an orphanage after
> its adoptive pares died in a bombing raid. There you go. The story of Annie
> could have been used as the basis of the plot and there wad nothing wrong
> with that.
But that would still be condoning kidnapping, even if the lying was
justified or removed completely.
> > Or does that argument only apply to sexual issues?
>
> And the Doctors abduction and captivity on the Games Station was not
> kidnapping was it ?
So are you now claiming that "Bad Wolf" was condoning kidnapping?
> >>>> > What do you mean, "Of course"? Where do you get this idea?
> >>
> >>> You haven't answered this bit. Why do you think that all serious works
> >>> of fiction should be moral propaganda?
>
> Works of fiction are not about portraying real life. They are about ideals.
> Real life is for the history books.
How about the kind of "What if..." speculative fiction based on
alternative histories (like one in which alien technology had the
chance to drastically alter WWII)? Should that be forbidden, too?
> >>>> >> Which is why it was not RTD's place to make it part of Doctor Who.
> >>
> >>>> > ...which is why he *didn't* make morality part of Doctor Who. It's
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Nope. That's not what he implied in Doctor Who confidential when he said
> >>> "get them while their young" in reference to his political and sexual
> >>> agenda.
> >
> > He actually stated outright that he was referring to his sexual or
> > political agenda? Or maybe he was referring to the BBC wanting to snap
>
> Yes, that's what he did.
>
> > up ratings, or simply, as Eccleston said in his interview, to get them
> > used to good TV when young.
>
> Get them while their young, because that when they are at their most
> suggestive is what he said (or something like that).
Couldn't this "getting them while they're young" also be with the aim of
removing their prejudices about how awful popular opinion (until
recently) claimed that /Doctor Who/ is?
> >>> And are you *sure* that failing to show someone being struck down by
> >>> almighty vengeance (or similar) is equivalent to heroifying them?
> >>
> >>The fact that these kind of perverts are being shown in realistic situations
> >>is herofying them.
> >
> > So everyone in the news is a hero, then? After all, they're all on
> > television in realistic situations.
>
> The news is real life. Drama is not supposed to portray real life. Its
> supposed to portray ideals.
You still haven't explained *why* it can't portray realistic life.
You find it more satisfying when it stops being believable and just
portrays ideals; many others do not share your tastes - does that make
them all wrong?
Glyn
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:45 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho, Glyn
> <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
>
> ... "There isn't a little boy born who wouldn't tear the world apart to save
> ... his mummy - and this little boy can." It's important that the boy
> ... *does* find his mother, and this is as good an explanation as any as to
> ... why he hasn't been able to find her yet - that he has been lied to
> ... about who his mother really was. It's shown that underage sex has
> ... long-term consequences, and that you can't permanently cover them up by
> ... lying about it.
>
> How do we know if she wasn't raped ?
Well, we don't. Mention of her having been raped would be likely to
cause even more objections than we're currently seeing, and Agamemnon
would probably claim that it was heroifying rapists, too.
pbo...@aol.com
news:1119913899.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Agamemnon wrote:
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1119853527.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>They should not be presented with these type of icons at all, or any for of
>social and moral depravity that they could perceive as being acceptable.
>Kids shows should show kids being nice to each other and their parents.
So all kids' TV should be as shallow as The Teletubbies or Care Bears?
Besides, define 'kids' - earlier you mentioned 11-13 year olds, who are
certainly old enough to be exposed to moral issues, yet here you're
angling for TV that would patronise anyone older than about 6.
>> Completely different situation. How many children are going to encounter
>> gun
>> runeers that are other children ?
>
><<<That isn't the point being made, the point is that the subject is
>presented as a morality play by centring the story around an immoral
>act - it makes no logical sense to say that children's stories must be
>qualitatively different in that regard.>>>
>
>Its a completely different situation. The story is centred around ADULTS !
Why is that relevant in the situation being described? Arms dealing
isn't acceptable whether conducted by adults or children - the age only
makes a difference in the particular example you're focusing on, which
is underage sex.
>> Because half the girls in my year at school were just like her
>
><<<Why was that - because they'd seen someone similar on television, or>>>
>
>Possibly considering all the soap garbage like Coronation Street and
>Crossroads they could have been exposed to,
Possibly, but that's an assumption without supporting evidence.
>> they are now mothers the portrayal of Jackie as a common slipper
>> reinforces
>> that role model.
>
><<<I'm not sure you're getting the idea of a role model quite right - a
>role model isn't a character that reflects the way people act, it's a
>character that they can aspire to emulate. Big difference. Showing>>>
>That is what an ideal role model should be,
Let me rephrase: a role model is a character that people can aspire to
emulate, *even if you disagree with the example they're setting*.
Jackie is not set up to be either a good or a bad role model - that's
the Doctor's job, and to an extent Rose's and Jack's.
>> Ah... yes. Romanticise drug taking why don't we.
>
><<<I take it that not only have you not seen the film, you didn't read
>what I acually wrote - try watching the film and see if you can come up
>with any argument at all to suggest that it romanticises drug use in
>any way. The point I was making was that, while it isn't a morality
>play and doesn't have an overt anti-drugs agenda, it's one of the most
>effective 'anti-drugs' films I've ever seen.>>>
>
>If the film is going to cover drug taking I have no intention of watching
>it.
It's a biography - it covers what happened in his life.
>> > You do realise that mythological stories (Biblical or otherwise) aren't
>> > actually historical accounts, don't you? There wasn't really a king
>>
>> You do actually realise that Oedipus was a real king of Thebes
>
>
><<<Read on - a historical figure with the name may have existed. The
>mythological one didn't, any more than the real Perseus killed a gorgon
>or Dionysus.>>>
>
>The historical figure was what the mythical one was based on and he killed
>someone identified as Medusa and someone else identified as Dionysus, and
>more about him later.
That's at best speculative - the myth has him killing a gorgon,
therefore he must have killed someone who later became identified as
the gorgon. You can't argue your position by assuming your position
that the myths are based in fact - only by finding the facts that can
be interpreted as forming the basis of the myth.
>Now do go on and tell me that all of these people and
> their forefathers and descendents were part of a huge conspiracy theory by
> the ancient Greeks spanning over 1000 years to the time of Aeschylus,
> Sophocles and Euripides, and over 200 Greek city states all colluded
> together so that none of their histories would contradict
<<<Most of these remains' names have nothing to do with the ancient
Greeks. The palace of Minos is a case in point - it was excavated in>>>
Nonsense. The place names recorded in Linear B and even Linear A are
all
ancient Greek and the places in the inscriptions are where the ancient
>Greeks said they were.
><<<the 19th Century and given that name lightheartedly after Minoan murals
>were found featuring lots of bulls (also the reason the Minoans were
>given that name - there's no evidence other than the location that this
>was the Cretan civilisation of Greek myth). The palace itself was the>>>
>
>
>It also dates from the same period as Minos I who lived in 1406 BC according
>to Jerome's Chronicon (Roger Pearse et al. translation 2005).
Yet as I recall the Minos of legend was either the second or third...
><<<first to be excavated, but is only one of many - Minoan palaces were
>like Roman villas rather than being the houses of the national ruler,
>and indeed the evidence suggests that the Minoans had no overall king.
>If they did he certainly didn't live in the 'Palace of Minos' - in the
>'90s they discovered that the owner of that palace was a woman. The>>>
>
>
>LOL.... Minos had a wife.
That's feeble. Put it another way - there is evidence only of the
accoutrements of a high-ranking female, none of any male consort. Nor
indeed is there a labyrinth.
><<<same trend is found in other sites - they've been associated with
>mythologised characters for ease of reference or public consumption,
>but I don't know of any that have a traditional association with those
>figures dating any further back than a couple of centuries. Simply put,>>>
>
>
>More nonsense. The palaces were only discovered because of references by
>Pausanius, Starbo, Homer et al. who associated them with 17th to 12th
>century Greek kings and complete dynasties over 2000 years ago.
Even if true, which in the case of the Minoans this largely isn't,
that's still relying on second-hand sources referring to characters who
supposedly lived over a millennium earlier, and long after the myths
associated with those characters had emerged, so references in these
texts does nothing to invalidate the point being made.
><<<the palaces were named after the figures long after the myths were
>created - they weren't the original homes of historical characters that>>>
>
>
>No. All of these sites continued to be inhabited by the decedents of the
>kings in question until well into classical times and these people showed
>visitors around and pointed out palaces, temples and burial sites..
See my Abydos example again. The 'Tomb of Osiris' was a place of
pilgrimage for centuries, but that doesn't change the fact that Osiris
(a) never existed and (b) wasn't buried there, and that the site was
only named for him long after his supposed death as a mortal. A
traditional association with a particular myth doesn't imply that
there's any truth to that association or that myth. Besides which, as I
said I know of no evidence that these sites have any association with
these characters dating back to anything like that period. Another
example is the spear supposedly used to pierce Christ's body - for
centuries Christians believed that the original spear was part of the
Holy Roman Emperor's coronation relics, but this has been ruled out by
recent tests. The spear that's been venerated for so long was probably
commissioned by Charlemagne and is certainly no older; the original has
long been lost.
><<<later became myths, though it isn't inconceivable that, like Perseus
>and Orpheus, people with those names existed and those names were later
>applied to otherwise unconnected mythological characters to tie the
>myths to Greek history.>>>
>
>
>Your conspiracy theory wont won't work.
Conspiracy theory? For a conspiracy theory somebody has to be involved
in a conspiracy.
> The biological decedents of the
>ancient Greek heroes were living and ruling Greek city state will into the
>Hellenistic period.
And a direct descendant of the god Mars founded Rome. I don't suppose
there are actual genealogies to back this claim up? Falsifying their
ancestry to appear more noble is a tried and tested tactic of nobility
throughout Europe and elsewhere.
> If your argument is that these kings didn't exist
Whether they existed is hardly the point. If rulers with those names
did exist then they weren't the same characters as those in the myths,
since they didn't perform the same feats, unless you're seriously
claiming that Theseus did kill the Minotaur and attempt to rescue
Persephone - there's certainly no historical account of an Amazon
attack on Athens in retribution for a kidnapping. *If* people with
those names existed, then, *then* they were mythologised and stories
invented around them to glorify the history of their city or region.
> then
>you might as well clam that Julius Caesar didn't exist either and all his
>decedents were made up. Why don't you also tell us that the line of decent
>of British royal family before Queen Victoria was made up retrospectively by
>Winston Churchill as war propaganda.
These are all characters with well-documented written documentary
support (often including things written by them, as in the case of
Caesar) contemporary with them, and they are not surrounded by stories
about their lives which are clearly untrue. Caesar existed, we know,
but did Romulus? It's possible someone called Romulus did indeed found
Rome. Was he raised by wolves? Highly unlikely, and since wolves don't
have human names it's even less likely the wolf in question was called
Arkela. Could a known king called Perseus have killed a neighbouring
ruler called Dionysus? That's plausible. Did Dionysus then ascend to
godhood and engage in bacchanalian orgies? Extremely unlikely. Did he
kill a gorgon? Definitely not. No records exist of anyone using the
tactic of smuggling themselves into an enemy city inside a wooden
horse, and it almost certainly never happened. Was Odysseus tempted by
Sirens or were they really seals? And so on and so forth.
> > named Oedipus who married his mother and went blind as a result.
> Lots of Egyptian Pharaohs married their own mothers.
><<<But, crucially, didn't go blind.>>>
>
>Read Herodotus book 2. They did. Two examples are given.
I have to admit I hadn't heard that, but I'd take a good deal of what
Herodotus has to say with a pinch of salt - he believed the pyramids
were built by slave labour as well, which has since proven false. I
doubt that he implicated sleeping with their mothers in the pharoahs'
blindness though. In any case, two out of how many? Given that it was a
comparatively common practice, inbreeding depression seems a more
plausible explanation than divine retribution. In any case, even
Oedipus didn't go blind as divine punishment - the gods could have
punished him at any time after he slept with his mother or killed his
father. He went blind only when he learned what happened, and the fact
that the story itself is untrue aside, blindness as a result of sudden
trauma is not an unknown condition (I'd refer you to the Ray Charles
film again). You're reading moral messages into stories that aren't
intended to be read that way - just as Theseus' spell in Hades wasn't
punishment for abduction or underage sex, Oedipus' blindness wasn't
punishment for his behaviour. Both just happened to occur within the
same story..
> > Minotaurs aren't a real result of liaisons between women and bulls (or
> Oh really.... tell me more. The Minotaur was Asterius the son of Minos.
<<<>From Wikipedia: "The Minotaur was born to the queen of Crete,
Pasiphaë, after she mated with a sacred bull." >>>
>The sacred bull was her husband.
I don't think anything in the myth suggests she married the bull... The
myth specifies that the bull was an animal sent by Poseidon to Minos
(I've heard versions in which it was Poseidon in bull form), refuting
any idea that 'Sacred Bull' was Minos' title as you seem to be
implying.
>><<<Well, in the anti-camp we have you, Fairplay, Veritas, Fett, the Doctor
>>and someone else whose name I've forgotten. In the for and 'don't mind'
>>camps we have everyone else. It's not much of a representative sample
>>to be sure, but the majority seems to be in favour.>>>
>
>No. The majority is undecided.
I've seen no evidence or commentary to that effect. On the other hand,
a failure by said majority to comment on the topic does suggest that
they don't care enough to get involved.
Philip Bowles
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119941937.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Wrong. The Greek Byzantine empire lasted over 1200 years.
>
>> In
>>480 BC the Greeks were unified against the Persian and in 336 BC Alexander
>>of Macedon was made President of the Hellenic Union and then went on to
>>conquer the world and the resulting Greek empire lasted 300 years. The
>>Christian Greek Byzantine empire separated from Rome in about 300 AD
>
> Granted, but while the religion was Greek Orthodox and many of the
> customs consciously based on those of Hellenistic Greence in later
> centuries the empire wasn't Greek nor was it controlled from Greece,
> which was merely one component state.
It was Greek and it was controlled from Greece. Byzantium was a Greek city.
>
> and
>>lasted over 1200 years (900 of which where Greek was the language of
> government) making it logiest lasting empire in Europe. The Turks were
> occupiers of Greece for less time that the Italians,
>
> Nevertheless, Greece was under post-Byzantine occupation for the best
> part of 600 years; even if you regard the Byzantine Empire as a Greek
> Empire, that merely pushes the timeline for Greece's independence
> forward by several centuries - eveb 600 years is a long time to remain
> without sovereignty.
Nope. The Greek Byzantine empire lasted until 1453 and after that the
Ecumenical Patriarchate exercised control over all Greeks under occupation
until the Greek Government was formed in 1833.
>
>> and let me remind you
>>that Italy was not even a unified state until the late 1800's nearly 50
>>years after Greece won it's liberation struggle.
>
> You needn't, since I'm fully aware of the fact, but that hardly relates
> to the fact that Greece was not itself independent, either as a single
> state or several.
Greece was under occupation and before that it was the Greek Byzantine
Empire which extended from Calabria and Sicily, to Egypt and Syria and also
included the Balkans the Greek peninsula and Asia-Minor. All the Greeks in
that region were under the authority of the Greek Orthodox Church and that's
what distinguished them from Bulgarians, Serbs and Armenians who had their
own states in the Byzantine empire.
>
>>The Hellenic Republic
>>looked to its Byzantine Christian roots when it declared independence
>>because it was through Christianity that the Greek identity and cultural
>>heritage was preserved, so cut the crap.
>
> As I said in the above, the information on the name changes to various
> sites came from a documentary during the Olympic year, hence my
> qualifier "I believe" - if you've got a better reference than "cut the
> crap", let's hear it. They were hardly going to associate pre-Byzantine
> remains with parts of their Byzantine history, were they? I don't deny
> that they did look to their Byzantine heritage, but in reconstructing
> the scope of Greek history they looked further back to the Hellenic era
> as well. Sites whose names or history had been forgotten over the
> centuries of occupation were an obvious focal point, as well as being
> visible symbols of Greek identity.
The sites were not forgotten nor was the history nor were there any Greek
names changed by the Greeks who lived there. What the foreign occupiers
called them is irrelevant since the Greeks did not use those names.
Constantinople was only called Istanbul because its a corruption of the
Greek "Eis tin poli" and was not used by the Greeks. Thessaloniki was also
Solun because the Bulgarian Slavs that invaded it corrupted the Greek. The
Greek war of independence took place because it was inevitable and it took
place under the cross at the same time other people oppressed by the Turks
revolted, not because some northern Europeans decided to foster a revival of
ancient Greece.
>
> Philip Bowles
>
Agamemnon
Neither.
Treat your neighbour as you would like to be treated yourself, is the one
that works and the one advocated by Plato (Gorgias) and by Christ.
>
>> > Quite apart from the failure of religious justifications for morality
>> > on the basis that people who don't believe in God can't be persuaded to
>>
>> Erm... Which God are you talking about now ?
>>
>> > accept his rules, there's a subtler problem with the concept - so,
>> > morality comes from God. Why should we follow God's rules, even if he
>> > exists and Christian (or whatever) doctrine accurately reflects his
>> > rules? Because otherwise we'll go to hell, perhaps? So, morality in the
>> > religious sense becomes purely selfish; do good and you'll be rewarded,
>> > otherwise you'll be punished.
>> >
>> > How are God's rules justified? Did he pull them out of a hat? After
>> > all, he could dictate anything he wants, and an arbitrary system is
>> > without authority or the power to persuade, as well as providing no
>> > sound basis for Earthly justice.
>>
>> Who is talking about rules from God ? Which God ?
>
> You were the one that brought up "a higher power". It doesn't matter
> *which* God, the argument still applies.
>> Each God passes judgement according to his whim.
>
> And how is that helpful to society? "Do as I say or I'll punish you" is
> less effective than society figuring out for themselves a system of
> justice that works.
Nope. That might be how your God lives but its not how my Gods live. Each
God to his own, but the can be persuaded if it suits them.
>
>> >>The story should not have been done at all in that manner. They could
>> >>have
>> >>had an adult mother who put her child into adoption because of pervery
>> >>who
>> >>had to deny she was the child's mother because she had kidnapped him
>> >> >from
>> >>his adoptive parents.
>> >
>> > But surely that would be to condone kidnapping and then lying about it.
>>
>> It would not be the kidnapping she was lying about. The kid would have
>> known
>> it was kidnapped and it could have been kidnapped form an orphanage
>> after
>> its adoptive pares died in a bombing raid. There you go. The story of
>> Annie
>> could have been used as the basis of the plot and there wad nothing
>> wrong
>> with that.
>
> But that would still be condoning kidnapping, even if the lying was
> justified or removed completely.
It would be condoning doing the right thing to save the child from the cruel
orphanage rather than getting pregnant under age.
>
>> > Or does that argument only apply to sexual issues?
>>
>> And the Doctors abduction and captivity on the Games Station was not
>> kidnapping was it ?
>
> So are you now claiming that "Bad Wolf" was condoning kidnapping?
It was condoning killing off the Daleks by virtue of that plot device.
>
>> >>>> > What do you mean, "Of course"? Where do you get this idea?
>> >>
>> >>> You haven't answered this bit. Why do you think that all serious
>> >>> works
>> >>> of fiction should be moral propaganda?
>>
>> Works of fiction are not about portraying real life. They are about
>> ideals.
>> Real life is for the history books.
>
> How about the kind of "What if..." speculative fiction based on
> alternative histories (like one in which alien technology had the
> chance to drastically alter WWII)? Should that be forbidden, too?
Just as long as it has nothing to do with portraying real life there is
nothing wrong with it.
>
>> >>>> >> Which is why it was not RTD's place to make it part of Doctor
>> >>>> >> Who.
>> >>
>> >>>> > ...which is why he *didn't* make morality part of Doctor Who.
>> >>>> > It's
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Nope. That's not what he implied in Doctor Who confidential when he
>> >>> said
>> >>> "get them while their young" in reference to his political and
>> >>> sexual
>> >>> agenda.
>> >
>> > He actually stated outright that he was referring to his sexual or
>> > political agenda? Or maybe he was referring to the BBC wanting to snap
>>
>> Yes, that's what he did.
>>
>> > up ratings, or simply, as Eccleston said in his interview, to get them
>> > used to good TV when young.
>>
>> Get them while their young, because that when they are at their most
>> suggestive is what he said (or something like that).
>
> Couldn't this "getting them while they're young" also be with the aim of
> removing their prejudices about how awful popular opinion (until
> recently) claimed that /Doctor Who/ is?
Err... RTD was trying to justify his sexual and liberal agenda.
>
>> >>> And are you *sure* that failing to show someone being struck down by
>> >>> almighty vengeance (or similar) is equivalent to heroifying them?
>> >>
>> >>The fact that these kind of perverts are being shown in realistic
>> >>situations
>> >>is herofying them.
>> >
>> > So everyone in the news is a hero, then? After all, they're all on
>> > television in realistic situations.
>>
>> The news is real life. Drama is not supposed to portray real life. Its
>> supposed to portray ideals.
>
> You still haven't explained *why* it can't portray realistic life.
If you want realistic life watch Big Brother. There was an interesting item
about it and it improving race relations on BBC Breakfast earlier today, and
in my opinion this is something that all of the BBC's soaps and dramas could
never achieve by their method of showing racists in action and thereby
encouraging racism by showing it in existence. You'd thing that the people
who wrote these dramas were racists themselves but nobody on Big Brother
behaved in a racist way and there was no need for such a situation to be
artificially created to promote so called awareness and that's the way it
should be, with people being nice to each other.
> You find it more satisfying when it stops being believable and just
> portrays ideals; many others do not share your tastes - does that make
> them all wrong?
It makes them easily satisfied with garbage.
pbo...@aol.com
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:58:45 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho, Glyn
> <glyn.kenning...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
>>
>> ... "There isn't a little boy born who wouldn't tear the world apart to save
>> ... his mummy - and this little boy can." It's important that the boy
>> ... *does* find his mother, and this is as good an explanation as any as to
>> ... why he hasn't been able to find her yet - that he has been lied to
>> ... about who his mother really was. It's shown that underage sex has
>> ... long-term consequences, and that you can't permanently cover them up by
>> ... lying about it.
>>
>>
>> How do we know if she wasn't raped ?
>
>
>
>Well, we don't. Mention of her having been raped would be likely to
>cause even more objections than we're currently seeing, and Agamemnon
>would probably claim that it was heroifying rapists, too.
I'm not sure why this is, but I don't seem able to pick up Magda's
posts through Google - any idea what might be going on there?
Philip Bowles
pbo...@aol.com
>> so will result in us punishing you (and possibly attempting to
>> rehabilitate you) like we did with the last rulebreaker.
>>
>>
>> or
>>
>>
>> Follow this list of what is accepted behaviour, because $DEITY says so
>> and will otherwise punish you in some physically improbable manner many
>> several years later.
>
>Neither.
>
>Treat your neighbour as you would like to be treated yourself, is the one
>that works and the one advocated by Plato (Gorgias) and by Christ.
It's also, in grossly simplified form, the basis of the Kantian
categorical imperative - but this is a code of social morality that has
no bearing on any 'higher power' and need not invoke one, so why bring
up that angle at all or call for divine retribution?
Philip Bowles
pbo...@aol.com
news:1119926498.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Agamemnon wrote:
>> "Glyn" <glyn.kenning...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
>> news:111985646...@despina.uk.clara.net...
>> > Agamemnon <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
>> >> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1119840371.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Agamemnon wrote:
>> >> >> "Glyn" <glyn.kenning...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:111982728...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>> >> >> > Agamemnon <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
>> >> >> >> "Glyn" <glyn.kenning...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:111980997...@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>> > show depicts divine retribution?
>>>>
>>>
>>> And divorces that act in question sufficiently far enough from realiry.
>>> Perseus slays a monstrous Gorgon rather than an ordinary woman.
>>
>>
>> You don't think the point of the story might have been different had he
>> killed an ordinary woman?
>
>
>
>The morality would have been diffrent.
Exactly the point - so it isn't an example of divorcing a moral
situation sufficiently from reality to make a point, as you claim
above.
> Perseus would have been hated because
>he killed a woman.
Considering the time he was in probably not hated (many psychologists
have read mysogynistic messages into the fact that so many monsters of
ancient, especially Greek, myth are female - the gorgons, Sirens,
harpies and fates are all monsters based on the human female form), but
he certainly wouldn't have had stories written about it.
>>> If they wanted to cover the issue of under age sex then they should have
>>> done the story of Theseus when he kidnapped Helen when he was 50 years
>>> old
>>> and she was only 12, and subsequently ended up stuck to a seat in Hades
>>> even
>>> though he did not even intend touch her until she came of age.
>
>
>> Two points:
>
>
>> 1. *Everyone* ended up in Hades, whatever their actions in life - it
>
>
>
>Not everyone in Hades was punished.
Exactly the point I was making, but I admit I misread what you wrote -
I got the impression that you were implying it was the simple fact that
he ended up in Hades that was his 'punishment'.
>The bestiality in the minotaur story was a reason why the Minotaur was
>hated.
That and the fact that he kept eating people...
>> 2. Theseus was also the focal point, and indeed the hero, of other
>> myths - are you criticising them for focusing on a future child
>> molester? If you learned this story first and then learned about the
>
>
>
>He didn't actually molest anyone, but the mere thought that he might saw to
>his punishment.
>
>
>> minotaur, would you cry foul because he was being held up as a role
>> model? Maybe mythology isn't a simple set of morality tales as you want
>> to believe.
>
>
>In the Minotaur story he is NOT being portrayed as a sexual devient.
True, but weren't you contesting that Jackie shouldn't exist as a
character, in any episode, because a later one revealed her to have had
underage sex? Same principle applies - using the analogy of a TV show
Theseus defeats the minotaur in one 'episode', and kidnaps Persephone
etc. in another (and in the second part of the two-parter, escapes).
>The Greek Drama Cycles always started with the hero battling adversity,
>overcoming it and then getting too big for his boots and being punished for
>his arrogance.
Yes. And there you have it - Theseus wasn't punished for immorality, he
was punished for annoying Hades (who generally took exception to people
trying to free Persephone), for being arrogant enough to challenge a
god. Whether or not he abducted anyone else, their age and what he
intended to do with them are irrelevant - so much so that some versions
of the myth (like the one cited on Wikipedia) don't even mention it. It
seems that you've had Greek mythology drilled into you by someone who
felt that it should be twisted into a morality play, but that is never
the point of the story unless you regard 'not angering the gods' as a
moral message. For that matter the Greek gods are hardly depicted as a
perfect lot - jealously, feuding, aldutery, seduction, murder, the odd
homosexual liaison (if you regard that sort of thing as imperfect) -
all the standard ingredients of a soap opera are there.
>> the Iliad do serve a similar purpose - both aimed to mythologise their
>> history and legends in order to instil a sense of pride and identity,
>> and to make their people seem favoured by the gods/God. The analogy
>> with Dr. Who rather falls flat on that point, though.
>
>
>And Ecclestons line "Humans, you never cease to amaze me" is there for what
>purpose then ?
I suppose it depends if it's a compliment or not - don't think I've
seen that episode yet. Not sure the end of World War Three when he's
pointing out to Mickey how thick humans are is a shining example of
glorifying the species, though.
>> > Sorry, TV entertainment is *not* meant to be a morality tale. Most of
>>
>>
>>> Of course it is,
>>
>>
>> What justifies this statement? Some TV entertainment is - Star Trek is
>> especially blatant on this point - and some can act as a morality tale
>> even when this isn't the primary intention - but why should all TV
>> entertainment have a moral message?
>
>
>I have no objection to ballroom dancing
You complain about garbage on TV yet have no problem with Celebrities
Come Dancing or whatever?
>and pop music shows
Or Pop Idol? There was a pop talent show over here a few months ago,
running at the same time Australia got the current series of American
Idol, but without the game show format, and the winner of that (who did
a flawless Roy Orbison impression) was a better singer by far than any
on the American one, and thankfully without giving screen time to the
drawn-out "I fink I'm gonna win coz I'm so kewl' introductions and
obligatory bitchy sniping when they don't.
>being shown as
>well. Nor to nature shows, documentaries and history programmes. See.
But all fiction must be either fantasy or a morality play? Even when
documentaries and history programmes expose kids to moral issues
without any trace of divine retribution?
> but most of what's on TV does not come close because its
>> utter garbage.
>>
>>
>> Being utter garbage and being a morality tale aren't mutually
>> exclusive, you know - again, look at a lot of Star Trek...
>
>
>
>Are you implying that Star Trek is garbage ?
How much of The Next Generation have you seen? Enterprise isn't too hot
either. Star Trek's had such a large volume of output that it's come up
with some good stuff over the years, even some very good stuff, but by
and large it tends more towards the garbage end of the spectrum, yes.
Plus it's got all that soap opera stuff in it like characters that
actually have various types of relationship with one another.
>>> Which is why it was not RTD's place to make it part of Doctor Who.
>>
>>
>> Yet you're arguing that he do just that, and given your above statement
>> that TV entertainment should be a morality tale, this is wholly
>
>
>
>But NOT A SOAP OPERA which is an immorality tale !
*Checks definition of 'soap opera' on Wikipedia*. "A drama, typically
performed as a serial on daytime television or radio, characterized by
stock characters and situations, sentimentality, and melodrama." I
can't see any mention of 'immorality tale' in the definition... How
many times can I state this? *FICTION DOES NOT ALWAYS HAVE A MORAL
POINT*. Indeed, soap opera has no point whatsoever, which is the whole
problem - it's interesting to note that the definition makes no mention
of story content, because there isn't much in the average soap.
>> > Family TV would be *incredibly* bad watching if every time something
>> > wrong had been done, we saw the wrongdoer burning in hell, in order to
>> > keep hammering home the difference between right and wrong.
>> No. And who says they have to burn. Pushing rocks up hills, being tired
>> to
>> spinning wheels and having them immersed in water up to their necks but
>> being unable to drink would make for far more interesting stories.
> And what about having them torn apart by dogs, having to climb walls of
> sharp rock that tear their flesh and excreting demons - if you want to
> go for some really inventive and nasty punishments, you can hardly do
> better than the Buddhist hell, where these examples come from. How they
> get punished is hardly the point - the point is that it would make for
> bad TV if divine punishment was involved all the time, indeed often if
> it were involved at all. It's a lot better, and a far better teaching
> experience, for the characters involved to make the moral decisions
> rather than having an arbitrary set of rules foisted on them from
> above.
>
>
>
>Characters can make moral decisions only in Socratic style dialogues where
>all the pros and cons are discussed in detail.
So you can only reach a moral decision after discussing it in detail
with someone? Characters are treated as people - they consider the
options (when they do) in their minds and act accordingly, and in
accordance with previously-formed values. It isn't the job of fiction
to spell everything out - yet again it is not intended to be a morality
play.
>> The moral of this story is that you can't teach kids morality by
>> bludgeoning them over the head with your values, you can only do that
>> with more considered situations that expose children to moral issues
>> and the real-life consequences of particular actions, and encourage
>> them to make up their own minds. If all you try to do is indoctrinate
>> them, you just create a mentality that is susceptible to indoctrination
>> - whether by your values or those you disapprove of.
>
>
>Why should children from a middle class background be exposed to drug
>dealing and sexual perverts and deviant attitudes on these issues they could
>latch on to in Doctor Who when they would never be exposed to them in their
>own community,
You know, I used to be that naive once. Drug use is rifle among the
middle classes, and where do you suppose they get the stuff if not from
dealers? I can hardly comment on their exposure to 'sexual perverts and
deviant attitudes' without more clarification of how widely you're
casting the net with that comment, but it's hard to imagine that the
middle class won't be exposed to them.
> and when they were grown up they could learn about these
>ssued PROPERLY with through discussion. If it aint broke, then don't fix
>it.
Because society has become such a model of moral perfection through
that approach, is that it? Television is a medium for fostering
discussion - the very fact that people are talking on this newsgroup
about a potentially contentious issue thrown into an episode of Dr. Who
is testament to that in itself.
Philip Bowles
pbo...@aol.com
>> > television in realistic situations.
>>> The news is real life. Drama is not supposed to portray real life. Its
>>> supposed to portray ideals.
>>
>> You still haven't explained *why* it can't portray realistic life.
>
>If you want realistic life watch Big Brother.
Let's see - on this thread you've expressed a liking for 'reality TV'
such as Big Brother and pop idol-style shows, a love of simplified
stories in which all the answers are provided, the bad guys punished
etc and a dislike of high drama. The TV networks must really love you.
Congratulations, you are the lowest common denominator. Goodbye!
>There was an interesting item
>about it and it improving race relations on BBC Breakfast earlier today, and
>in my opinion this is something that all of the BBC's soaps and dramas could
>never achieve by their method of showing racists in action and thereby
>encouraging racism by showing it in existence.
You know an awful lot about what goes on in these soaps for never
having watched them. As I don't watch them myself I can't usefully
comment on how racist or otherwise they may be. I don't know why it is,
but the media seems light years behind the rest of society in noticing
that things change - a year or so ago the Guardian ran a couple of
articles on 'modern' attitudes towards homosexuality in Britain, and in
both cases the authors seemed amazed that no one, even in traditionally
conservative areas of the country, cared about it in the slightest.
You'd thing that the people
>who wrote these dramas were racists themselves but nobody on Big Brother
>behaved in a racist way
It's a poor reflection on society indeed if it's being flagged up as
unusual that a dozen or so kids locked in the same house aren't racist
- and how many racists would apply for a place on a show in which they
had a good chance of cohabiting with a black or Asian person for
however many weeks/months?
> and there was no need for such a situation to be
>artificially created
The whole situation is artificially created, and that renders this sort
of anecdote meaningless. You might as well say that no one on that show
where a team of gay men go out to give heterosexuals fashion tips shows
any evidence of homophobia - how many homophobes are likely to agree to
being put in the situation in the first place?
>to promote so called awareness and that's the way it
>should be, with people being nice to each other.
If soaps don't portray that then they're stuck several decades behind
other dramas, not to mention real life. Back in the UK I live just
outside High Wycombe, the town with the country's largest Kashmiri
population, and while out of work for a time I ended up on a scheme
with the sort of working-class down-and-outs you might expect
(admittedly stereotypically) to exhibit racist attitudes towards Asian
or black people on the same scheme - and I never encountered a trace of
racism, either towards the 'minoity' group members or towards me or
other Caucasians from them, nor do people in the black and Asian
communities appear to anticipate or expect it from others.
Philip Bowles
pbo...@aol.com
news:1119941937.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Show quoted text -
>> pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Agamemnon wrote:
>>> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:1119853527.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> All of which is very interestring, but bears no relation to the
>> comments I made, which merely stated that Greece had had no independent
>> existence (unified or otherwise) since Roman times - pre-Roman events
>> have no bearing on that, so I'm unsure why you bring them up.
>
>
>
>Wrong. The Greek Byzantine empire lasted over 1200 years.
Just under (330-1453 AD = 1,123 years), but this comment has no bearing
on anything I said above nor does it seem to relate to your contention
that pre-Roman events are relevant to this part of the discussion.
>> In
>>480 BC the Greeks were unified against the Persian and in 336 BC Alexander
>>of Macedon was made President of the Hellenic Union and then went on to
>>conquer the world and the resulting Greek empire lasted 300 years. The
>>Christian Greek Byzantine empire separated from Rome in about 300 AD
>
>
> Granted, but while the religion was Greek Orthodox and many of the
>> customs consciously based on those of Hellenistic Greence in later
>> centuries the empire wasn't Greek nor was it controlled from Greece,
>> which was merely one component state.
>
>
>
>It was Greek and it was controlled from Greece. Byzantium was a Greek city.
Byzantium was a Roman city, ruled by Roman law (albeit spoken in Greek)
and with a Roman system of government maintained long after the split
between East and West. Most of the empire's rulers, so far as I know,
were not of Greek ethnicity.
>> Nevertheless, Greece was under post-Byzantine occupation for the best
>> part of 600 years; even if you regard the Byzantine Empire as a Greek
>> Empire, that merely pushes the timeline for Greece's independence
>> forward by several centuries - eveb 600 years is a long time to remain
>> without sovereignty.
>
>
>
>Nope. The Greek Byzantine empire lasted until 1453
Or approximately 600 years ago - as close to 600 as somewhat over 1100
is to 1200 at any rate...
> and after that the
>?Ecumenical Patriarchate exercised control over all Greeks under occupation
>until the Greek Government was formed in 1833.
The Patriarchate is a religious authority, right? Not a sovereign
government, any more than the Pope exercises control over Italy (or did
in the Holy Roman period).
>>> and let me remind you
>>>that Italy was not even a unified state until the late 1800's nearly 50
>>>years after Greece won it's liberation struggle.
>
>
>> You needn't, since I'm fully aware of the fact, but that hardly relates
>> to the fact that Greece was not itself independent, either as a single
>> state or several.
>
>
>
>Greece was under occupation
By an empire with a significantly different culture from the one it
replaced. Just like the Poles, Czechs and others under the Holy Roman
and later Austro-Hungarian empires, when independence came the Greek
national identity needed to be forged anew, albeit based on what had
gone before - no living Greek had known political independence for
generations by that stage.
>>>The Hellenic Republic
>>>looked to its Byzantine Christian roots when it declared independence
>>>because it was through Christianity that the Greek identity and cultural
>>>heritage was preserved, so cut the crap.
>>
>> As I said in the above, the information on the name changes to various
>> sites came from a documentary during the Olympic year, hence my
>> qualifier "I believe" - if you've got a better reference than "cut the
>> crap", let's hear it. They were hardly going to associate pre-Byzantine
>> remains with parts of their Byzantine history, were they? I don't deny
>> that they did look to their Byzantine heritage, but in reconstructing
>> the scope of Greek history they looked further back to the Hellenic era
>> as well. Sites whose names or history had been forgotten over the
>> centuries of occupation were an obvious focal point, as well as being
>> visible symbols of Greek identity.
>
>The sites were not forgotten nor was the history nor were there any Greek
>names changed by the Greeks who lived there. What the foreign occupiers
>called them is irrelevant since the Greeks did not use those names.
>Constantinople was only called Istanbul because its a corruption of the
>Greek "Eis tin poli" and was not used by the Greeks. Thessaloniki was also
>Solun because the Bulgarian Slavs that invaded it corrupted the Greek. The
>Greek war of independence took place because it was inevitable and it took
>place under the cross at the same time other people oppressed by the Turks
>revolted, not because some northern Europeans decided to foster a revival of
>ancient Greece.
It took place because the Greek separatists were encouraged by other
rebellions against the Turks. It succeeded because of aid from Western
Europe. Granted, it was overstating it to say the Greeks weren't
involved - if there hadn't been a separatist movement there'd have been
nothing for the French, British and others to support.
Philip Bowles
Ed Courtenay
>
>
> If you want realistic life watch Big Brother.
You have *got* to be kidding. 'Realistic life' is about the last
attribute you could possibly attach to Big Brother.
Ed Courtenay
>
>
> So kids shouldn't learn how not to behave through bad examples? We see
> Jackie's life, what she's done, and the consequences in how she lives
> as an adult. Consequences that are slightly more relevant than the risk
> of having to lock your child in a labyrinth, might I add...
>
>
More than this, IMHO Jackie is held up as a laughing stock - in much the
same way that the Royale family were - by allowing the character to be
hoisted by her own petard.
The example that had me in fits was the cafe scene in PoTW when she
announces that (paraphrasing wildly) "This place has gone really
upmarket since you've been away. They do coleslaw in pots and
everything..." At least, that was the gist of it.
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119960181....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Byzantium was founded by the Greeks, it was occupied by the Greeks, it
culture was Greek, its religion was Greek and its language was Greek. The
Greeks were the only people in the Byzantine empire who called themselves
Romaioi because Romiosini was a Greek creation. Under the ottomans they were
called Rum. Byzantium was multi-ethnic empire with the Greeks at the heart
of it. The Greeks formed its economic back bone, its religious back bone,
its cultural back bone and its army and held out the longest against the
Turks (Norman occupation aside).
>
>>> Nevertheless, Greece was under post-Byzantine occupation for the best
>>> part of 600 years; even if you regard the Byzantine Empire as a Greek
>>> Empire, that merely pushes the timeline for Greece's independence
>>> forward by several centuries - eveb 600 years is a long time to remain
>>> without sovereignty.
>>
>>
>>
>>Nope. The Greek Byzantine empire lasted until 1453
>
> Or approximately 600 years ago - as close to 600 as somewhat over 1100
> is to 1200 at any rate...
The ottoman occupation lasted 380 years.
>
>> and after that the
>>?Ecumenical Patriarchate exercised control over all Greeks under
>>occupation
>>until the Greek Government was formed in 1833.
>
> The Patriarchate is a religious authority, right? Not a sovereign
> government, any more than the Pope exercises control over Italy (or did
> in the Holy Roman period).
Nonsense. Under the ottomans the Patriarchate was more than a religious
authority and took on de-fecto sovereignty over all Greek's who were defined
as Greek Orthodox Christians.
>
>>>> and let me remind you
>>>>that Italy was not even a unified state until the late 1800's nearly 50
>>>>years after Greece won it's liberation struggle.
>>
>>
>>> You needn't, since I'm fully aware of the fact, but that hardly relates
>>> to the fact that Greece was not itself independent, either as a single
>>> state or several.
>>
>>
>>
>>Greece was under occupation
>
> By an empire with a significantly different culture from the one it
> replaced. Just like the Poles, Czechs and others under the Holy Roman
> and later Austro-Hungarian empires, when independence came the Greek
> national identity needed to be forged anew, albeit based on what had
No it did not. You might as wall make the same idiotic claim about the
Italian identity being forged since there was no Italian independence until
1860. The Italians still knew they were Italians and the Greek still knew
they were Greeks.
> gone before - no living Greek had known political independence for
> generations by that stage.
Stop trying to mix up Anglo-Saxon notions of nation states with European
notions of ethno-national identities. The Greeks knew who they were and did
not stop being Greek just because of 380 years of subjugation, like the
Italians did not stop being Italian because of an even longer period of
Norman domination.
Glyn
> On 28 Jun 2005 03:38:05 -0700, in rec.arts.drwho, pbo...@aol.com arranged some electrons,
> so they looked like this :
>
> ... posts through Google - any idea what might be going on there?
>
> Normally they are kept 5 days and then deleted.
They tend to be kept on Google groups indefinitely - yours aren't
getting through because you're not using any kind of email address (not
even an invalid one), just "Magda <>" so google drops them.
> Why don't you use a newsreader ?
Of course, if you want to take the elitist attitude that people using
google groups[1] don't deserve to read what you have to say, then this is a
good way to go about it ;-)
Glyn
[1] - For more reasons than simple lack of clue; my ISP are a barebones
one the don't provide an NNTP server, so I decided to pay for a
subscription to clara rather than being at the mercy of unreliable free
servers.
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119958796.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> > So everyone in the news is a hero, then? After all, they're all on
>>> > television in realistic situations.
>
>
>
>>to promote so called awareness and that's the way it
>>should be, with people being nice to each other.
>
> If soaps don't portray that then they're stuck several decades behind
> other dramas, not to mention real life. Back in the UK I live just
> outside High Wycombe, the town with the country's largest Kashmiri
> population, and while out of work for a time I ended up on a scheme
> with the sort of working-class down-and-outs you might expect
> (admittedly stereotypically) to exhibit racist attitudes towards Asian
> or black people on the same scheme - and I never encountered a trace of
> racism, either towards the 'minoity' group members or towards me or
> other Caucasians from them, nor do people in the black and Asian
> communities appear to anticipate or expect it from others.
>
Proving once again that the script writes of the BBC and ITV soaps and
so-called dramas are the real racists, who are promoting and encouraging
racism in places where it is not known. These kind of shows and scripts
should never be allowed on air.
> Philip Bowles
>
Glyn
> Kids shows should show kids being nice to each other and their parents.
Did you see that Simpson's episode where it was decided that "Itchy &
Scratchy" was far too violent, and it got toned down to showing the two
characters being nice to each other all the time? The kids quickly got
bored, turned off the telly and stepped blinking into the sunlight.
If all kids' shows were to adopt this practice in real life, I expect
you'd get a similar result. Kids watching less TV in favour of going
outside more may be no bad thing, but it would have completely failed
as a morality play.
> Watch the Vicky Pollard scotches on Little Brittan. They are self
> explanatorily.
How is laughing at Vicky Pollard behaving like a stupid slapper any
different from laughing at Jackie Tyler behaving like a stupid slapper?
> > > Parents' admonitions have been remarkably ineffective at preventing
> > > delinquent behaviour - given the choice between warning a child about
> > > drug use, say, by getting the parents to 'educate' them or showing them
> > > a film like "Ray", I'd put more faith in the film having a positive
> >
> > Ah... yes. Romanticise drug taking why don't we.
>
> <<<I take it that not only have you not seen the film, you didn't read
> what I acually wrote - try watching the film and see if you can come up
> with any argument at all to suggest that it romanticises drug use in
> any way. The point I was making was that, while it isn't a morality
> play and doesn't have an overt anti-drugs agenda, it's one of the most
> effective 'anti-drugs' films I've ever seen.>>>
>
> If the film is going to cover drug taking I have no intention of watching
> it.
It seems that it covers it only in the sense shows that it's generally a
very stupid thing to do. Is your resolve so weak that watching the act
of drug-taking, even in the context of showing how bad it can be for
you, is going to turn you to doing it?
If the guy is shown to slowly rot in a really grisly manner as a result
of all the chemicals inside him (yes, I know that this is absurd), does
that make it OK?
What about if he rots in a really grisly manner as a result of some
higher being getting pissed of at him for taking drugs?
...and what about if he rots in a really grisly manner, and it's
ambiguous why?
Glyn
Glyn
> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> news:111994245...@doris.uk.clara.net...
> > contain people who remain unconvinced by laws pertaining to be from a
> > higher power. Which of the following are going to persuade *more*
> > people?
> >
> > Follow this list of what is accepted behaviour, because failing to do
> > so will result in us punishing you (and possibly attempting to
> > rehabilitate you) like we did with the last rulebreaker.
> >
> > or
> >
> > Follow this list of what is accepted behaviour, because $DEITY says so
> > and will otherwise punish you in some physically improbable manner many
> > several years later.
>
> Neither.
>
> Treat your neighbour as you would like to be treated yourself, is the one
> that works and the one advocated by Plato (Gorgias) and by Christ.
I know that the third is obviously the ideal model for society - but I
was asking which of the first two is more likely to work. If the
idea is to stop someone behaving badly, but that person is too selfish
to care that it damages the rest of society, then the third one isn't
really going to help, while some form of deterrent may.
> >> Each God passes judgement according to his whim.
> >
> > And how is that helpful to society? "Do as I say or I'll punish you" is
> > less effective than society figuring out for themselves a system of
> > justice that works.
>
> Nope. That might be how your God lives but its not how my Gods live. Each
> God to his own, but the can be persuaded if it suits them.
Yes, it's only based on *my* belief in what higher powers may be
capable. My point is, it doesn't matter whether *you* believe in a
higher power - plenty of people don't believe in one, or don't agree
with you on what moral standards it has, so they're going to find a
demonstrably real justice system (no matter how ineffective or
inappropriate it may be), that was put together with this express
purpose, a much more convincing deterrent.
> >> >>The story should not have been done at all in that manner. They could
> >> >>have
> >> >>had an adult mother who put her child into adoption because of pervery
> >> >>who
> >> >>had to deny she was the child's mother because she had kidnapped him
> >> >> >from
> >> >>his adoptive parents.
> >> >
> >> > But surely that would be to condone kidnapping and then lying about it.
> >>
> >> It would not be the kidnapping she was lying about. The kid would have known
> >> it was kidnapped and it could have been kidnapped form an orphanage after
> >> its adoptive pares died in a bombing raid. There you go. The story of Annie
> >> could have been used as the basis of the plot and there wad nothing wrong
> >> with that.
> >
> > But that would still be condoning kidnapping, even if the lying was
> > justified or removed completely.
>
> It would be condoning doing the right thing to save the child from the cruel
> orphanage rather than getting pregnant under age.
I'd much rather brainwash impressionable young people into thinking that
kidnapping is *never* right, than that kidnapping is *sometimes* right
- they might not yet have the ability to make a fully informed decision
on *when* it's "doing the right thing".
> >> Works of fiction are not about portraying real life. They are about ideals.
> >> Real life is for the history books.
> >
> > How about the kind of "What if..." speculative fiction based on
> > alternative histories (like one in which alien technology had the
> > chance to drastically alter WWII)? Should that be forbidden, too?
>
> Just as long as it has nothing to do with portraying real life there is
> nothing wrong with it.
At what point does an alternative history stop portraying real life?
How much of a change needs to have been made?
What if I had won the last game of Scrabble I played - in real life, I
lost it, so is a fiction based within this situation especially
realistic?
To flog a tired horse, what if the outcome of WWII had been the
opposite? People would still be living, breathing and eating - would a
story based on that premise be too realistic for your liking?
If you're going to make some life-affirming, morally uplifting,
feel-good revelation to the audience, how does putting it in a realistic
setting reduce that effect? IMHO it would actually make it *more*
effective.
> If you want realistic life watch Big Brother. There was an interesting item
> about it and it improving race relations on BBC Breakfast earlier today
Hang on, I thought you were just claiming that you *can't* make any kind
of moral point if you use a realistic setting?
Glyn
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:39:31 +0100, in rec.arts.drwho, Glyn
> <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
> ... > On 28 Jun 2005 03:38:05 -0700, in rec.arts.drwho, pbo...@aol.com arranged some electrons,
> ... > Normally they are kept 5 days and then deleted.
> ...
> ... They tend to be kept on Google groups indefinitely - yours aren't
> ... getting through because you're not using any kind of email address (not
> ... even an invalid one), just "Magda <>" so google drops them.
>
> I see... I can forge an address if it helps. They won't be kept long anyway...
Think again:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.arts.drwho/index/browse_frm/thread/a55ed10c56de4df7/
(and that's not going back especially far)
Glyn
Agamemnon
> Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
>> Kids shows should show kids being nice to each other and their parents.
>
> Did you see that Simpson's episode where it was decided that "Itchy &
> Scratchy" was far too violent, and it got toned down to showing the two
> characters being nice to each other all the time? The kids quickly got
> bored, turned off the telly and stepped blinking into the sunlight.
>
> If all kids' shows were to adopt this practice in real life, I expect
> you'd get a similar result. Kids watching less TV in favour of going
> outside more may be no bad thing, but it would have completely failed
> as a morality play.
Nope. It would have succeeded by getting kids to be nice to each other.
>
>> Watch the Vicky Pollard scotches on Little Brittan. They are self
>> explanatorily.
>
> How is laughing at Vicky Pollard behaving like a stupid slapper any
> different from laughing at Jackie Tyler behaving like a stupid slapper?
Vicky Pollard is played for laughs. Jackie Tyler is not, and should not be
in Doctor Who at all. I would have no problem with her if she were
transferred to Little Britain.
I am not watch a show portraying drug taking and I am not watching a show
that is going to depress me.
Agamemnon
> Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
>> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
>> news:111994245...@doris.uk.clara.net...
>> > And any society that's not a perfectly ideal moral society will also
>> > contain people who remain unconvinced by laws pertaining to be from a
>> > higher power. Which of the following are going to persuade *more*
>> > people?
>> >
>> > Follow this list of what is accepted behaviour, because failing to do
>> > so will result in us punishing you (and possibly attempting to
>> > rehabilitate you) like we did with the last rulebreaker.
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> > Follow this list of what is accepted behaviour, because $DEITY says so
>> > and will otherwise punish you in some physically improbable manner many
>> > several years later.
>>
>> Neither.
>>
>> Treat your neighbour as you would like to be treated yourself, is the
>> one
>> that works and the one advocated by Plato (Gorgias) and by Christ.
>
> I know that the third is obviously the ideal model for society - but I
> was asking which of the first two is more likely to work. If the
As Socrates would have said, that's a stupid question. You already know what
is the right option and that is option 3 therefore options 1 and 2 are not a
choice.
> idea is to stop someone behaving badly, but that person is too selfish
> to care that it damages the rest of society, then the third one isn't
> really going to help, while some form of deterrent may.
>
I disagree. The dialogue of Gorgias covers the issue so I suggest you read
it.
>> >> Each God passes judgement according to his whim.
>> >
>> > And how is that helpful to society? "Do as I say or I'll punish you"
>> > is
>> > less effective than society figuring out for themselves a system of
>> > justice that works.
>>
>> Nope. That might be how your God lives but its not how my Gods live.
>> Each
>> God to his own, but the can be persuaded if it suits them.
>
> Yes, it's only based on *my* belief in what higher powers may be
> capable. My point is, it doesn't matter whether *you* believe in a
> higher power - plenty of people don't believe in one, or don't agree
> with you on what moral standards it has, so they're going to find a
> demonstrably real justice system (no matter how ineffective or
> inappropriate it may be), that was put together with this express
> purpose, a much more convincing deterrent.
Then they have been miss-educated.
It would have been even better not to cover the issue at all. The Empty
Dances should never have been written.
>
>> >> Works of fiction are not about portraying real life. They are about
>> >> ideals.
>> >> Real life is for the history books.
>> >
>> > How about the kind of "What if..." speculative fiction based on
>> > alternative histories (like one in which alien technology had the
>> > chance to drastically alter WWII)? Should that be forbidden, too?
>>
>> Just as long as it has nothing to do with portraying real life there is
>> nothing wrong with it.
>
> At what point does an alternative history stop portraying real life?
History does not portray real life. It's the analysis of the causes and
consequences of events. Read Herodotus introduction to his Herodotus.
> How much of a change needs to have been made?
>
> What if I had won the last game of Scrabble I played - in real life, I
> lost it, so is a fiction based within this situation especially
> realistic?
You can write a story about you game of scrabble if you like. I don't see
that it would be particularly harmful, and would be a big improvement on
Coronation Street and Eastenders.
>
> To flog a tired horse, what if the outcome of WWII had been the
> opposite? People would still be living, breathing and eating - would a
> story based on that premise be too realistic for your liking?
If you want to predict future political events if WW2 went the other way
then do it as a scientific paper and if you want to write a story with
people being bad to each other then do don't aim it at kids.
>
> If you're going to make some life-affirming, morally uplifting,
> feel-good revelation to the audience, how does putting it in a realistic
> setting reduce that effect? IMHO it would actually make it *more*
> effective.
I already told you that you cannot portray real life in drama because it
encourages deviant behaviour by showing you it. I am talking about its
portrayal of adultery and underage sex, and racism, and drug taking as
normal behaviour which is what soap operas do. If you won't to have an
adulterer in your plot then show him burning in hell, not breaking up with
his wife. If you want to have a racist in your plot then show him being torn
to pieces by savage hounds, not being reprimanded by a judge. Otherwise
don't show them at all.
>
>> If you want realistic life watch Big Brother. There was an interesting
>> item
>> about it and it improving race relations on BBC Breakfast earlier today
>
> Hang on, I thought you were just claiming that you *can't* make any kind
> of moral point if you use a realistic setting?
Big Brother did not set out to make a moral point. It's just happens to
prove one as I already explained in the paragraph you cut.
pbo...@aol.com
Ed Courtenay wrote:
> pbo...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > So kids shouldn't learn how not to behave through bad examples? We see
> > Jackie's life, what she's done, and the consequences in how she lives
> > as an adult. Consequences that are slightly more relevant than the risk
> > of having to lock your child in a labyrinth, might I add...
> >
> >
>
> More than this, IMHO Jackie is held up as a laughing stock - in much the
> same way that the Royale family were - by allowing the character to be
> hoisted by her own petard.
I'm not sure I'd go that far. To me it seems that Jackie's purpose is
to be a foil for Rose - her function is to show the sort of life Rose
is trying to escape from by going with the Doctor. The essential point
is of course the same - she is in no way designed to be taken as a role
model.
Philip Bowles
pbo...@aol.com
news:1119960181....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1119941937.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
>> Show quoted text -
>>> pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> Agamemnon wrote:
>>>> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> > news:1119853527.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>Byzantium was founded by the Greeks, it was occupied by the Greeks, it
>culture was Greek, its religion was Greek and its language was Greek.
None of which is inconsistent with what I said above, that the
trappings of nationhood - the laws, government and political system -
were Roman Italian in origin, making the Empire a Roman state rather
than a Greek one.
>> Or approximately 600 years ago - as close to 600 as somewhat over 1100
>> is to 1200 at any rate...
>
>
>
>The ottoman occupation lasted 380 years.
Splitting hairs. Nowhere did I mention the Ottomans - I mentioned that
Greece was under occupation, which was true before the Ottomans took
over.
>>Greece was under occupation
>>
>>
>> By an empire with a significantly different culture from the one it
>> replaced. Just like the Poles, Czechs and others under the Holy Roman
>> and later Austro-Hungarian empires, when independence came the Greek
>> national identity needed to be forged anew, albeit based on what had
>
>
>No it did not. You might as wall make the same idiotic claim about the
>Italian identity being forged since there was no Italian independence until
>1860. The Italians still knew they were Italians and the Greek still knew
>they were Greeks.
And both knew they were Europeans, particular Italians knew they were
Florentines or Romans etc. etc. Simple association with a geographical
area does not constitute a national identity, just as there is
presently no European national identity.
>> gone before - no living Greek had known political independence for
>> generations by that stage.
>
>
>Stop trying to mix up Anglo-Saxon notions of nation states with European
>notions of ethno-national identities.
The mix-up appears to be your cofusion between ethnic and national
identity - national identity is about more than cultural ties, it's
about self-determination. Nowhere have I argued that Greeks lost their
cultural identity, indeed I've pointed out the Greek cultural influence
on the Byzantine Empire. Yet what they lacked throughout was national
sovereignty, and that's not a minor consideration - it's the very
reason separatist movements emerged in the first place, as an
acknowledgment that having control of their destiny was important to
their identity as Greeks. If they'd been happy to simply 'be Greek'
while governed by Turks they'd still be under Turkish rule today.
Philip Bowles
pbo...@aol.com
>
>History does not portray real life. It's the analysis of the causes and
>consequences of events. Read Herodotus introduction to his Herodotus.
Just in case you've missed the past 2,000+ years, as you seem to have
from your list of references, Herodotus is not generally regarded as
being a particularly good historian - in large part because of his
habit of 'interpreting' what he observed or deduced from history (such
as his idea that the Egyptians used slave labour to build the pyramids,
or various assertions about the habits of the Amazons). Granted, he was
probably better at recording actual events than historians and
archaeologists have traditionally given him credit for - both the
Amazons and Scythian horse burials were once dismissed as mere
inventions of his rather than historical accounts until remains of both
were uncovered in the last couple of decades - but he's not the best
reference for a definition of history. The very fact that people have
tended to ignore what he wrote until they make a discovery and realise
"oh, Herodotus said that, didn't he?" is testament to his common
portrayal. He's lasted for no other reason than his works are the only
written accounts of many peoples, places and events from that period.
A good deal of history does indeed involve descriptions of the events
that historians analyse - a history of the First World War doesn't just
consist of an analysis of the political tensions prior to the war and
the situation in Europe afterwards, it also includes objective factual
descriptions of what actually took place during that period. Pliny's
account of Pompeii's destruction doesn't dwell on the causes of the
eruption and he didn't live to write about the consequences - would you
therefore say that his straightforward factual account isn't history?
Philip Bowles
George Saden
Glyn wrote:
> and unambiguously bisexual, without a tinge of camp. A drama aimed in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh really. Captain Jack is as camp as a row of tents.
> part at children, with a sexy bisexual man, and no-one at all seems to
> mind. Things have changed a great deal.
I mind, but clearly, anyone who does mind, does not get any opportunity
to air their views aside from on the net, and you can be sure that it
was a nancy boy who wrote that article.
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120005161.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> At what point does an alternative history stop portraying real life?
>>
>>History does not portray real life. It's the analysis of the causes and
>>consequences of events. Read Herodotus introduction to his Herodotus.
>
> Just in case you've missed the past 2,000+ years, as you seem to have
> from your list of references, Herodotus is not generally regarded as
> being a particularly good historian - in large part because of his
Sorry to disappoint you but actually he is regarded as completely reliable
and accurate. Ignore the past 100 years of discredited 20th century
revisionism. Everything Herodotus said has now been proven archaeologically.
> habit of 'interpreting' what he observed or deduced from history (such
He did nothing of the kind. He wrote down what he was told from both sides
point of view and expressed his opinion based on those facts. Compare that
to the one-sided inscriptions of the Assyrians and Egyptians that never told
the whole truth. Ramses II's self proclaimed victory at Kadesh was actual a
total humiliation according to the Hittites.
> as his idea that the Egyptians used slave labour to build the pyramids,
That was NOT his idea. It is YOUR idea based on your guilt about the
American salve trade.
This is waht Herodorus actually wrote. "Cheops succeeded to the throne, and
plunged into all manner of wickedness. He closed the temples, and forbade
the Egyptians to offer sacrifice, compelling them instead to labour, one and
all, in his service. Some were required to drag blocks of stone down to the
Nile from the quarries in the Arabian range of hills; others received the
blocks after they had been conveyed in boats across the river, and drew them
to the range of hills called the Libyan. A hundred thousand men laboured
constantly, and were relieved every three months by a fresh lot. It took ten
years' oppression of the people to make the causeway for the conveyance of
the stones, a work not much inferior, in my judgment, to the pyramid
itself."
Herodotus account once again is borne out by modern research. The 20th
century revisionist account of the enslavement of foreign peoples, such as
the Hebrews is an invention of Hollywood and has been proven to be another
sham. Archaeology shows that the native Egyptians worked on the pyramids
themselves in gangs as Herodotus said.
> or various assertions about the habits of the Amazons). Granted, he was
> probably better at recording actual events than historians and
> archaeologists have traditionally given him credit for - both the
> Amazons and Scythian horse burials were once dismissed as mere
> inventions of his rather than historical accounts until remains of both
> were uncovered in the last couple of decades - but he's not the best
> reference for a definition of history. The very fact that people have
Herodotus invented the definition of history. Your attempt to discredit him
is unfounded and indicative of irrational prejudice.
> tended to ignore what he wrote until they make a discovery and realise
> "oh, Herodotus said that, didn't he?" is testament to his common
> portrayal. He's lasted for no other reason than his works are the only
It's a testament to 20th century revisionist politically motivated academic
biggotry.
> written accounts of many peoples, places and events from that period.
>
> A good deal of history does indeed involve descriptions of the events
> that historians analyse - a history of the First World War doesn't just
> consist of an analysis of the political tensions prior to the war and
> the situation in Europe afterwards, it also includes objective factual
> descriptions of what actually took place during that period. Pliny's
And what do you think Herodotus' account of the Persian War was ?
> account of Pompeii's destruction doesn't dwell on the causes of the
> eruption and he didn't live to write about the consequences - would you
Pliny the younger wrote the account of the eruption of Vesuvius and its
consequences about two decades after his uncle was killed, and the 20th
century rivisionist idiots didn't even believe him, an eye witness, until
everything he said was proven by the Mt St Helens eruption 25 years ago..
pbo...@aol.com
Agamemnon wrote:
> <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1120005161.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>> At what point does an alternative history stop portraying real life?
> >>
> >>History does not portray real life. It's the analysis of the causes and
> >>consequences of events. Read Herodotus introduction to his Herodotus.
> >
> > Just in case you've missed the past 2,000+ years, as you seem to have
> > from your list of references, Herodotus is not generally regarded as
> > being a particularly good historian - in large part because of his
>
> Sorry to disappoint you but actually he is regarded as completely reliable
> and accurate.
By whom? I've already given examples of two cases in which his accounts
were (admittedly in those cases) dismissed, and another in which he has
been shown to have simply been wrong.
Ignore the past 100 years of discredited 20th century
> revisionism. Everything Herodotus said has now been proven archaeologically.
>
> > habit of 'interpreting' what he observed or deduced from history (such
>
> He did nothing of the kind. He wrote down what he was told from both sides
> point of view and expressed his opinion based on those facts. Compare that
> to the one-sided inscriptions of the Assyrians and Egyptians that never told
> the whole truth. Ramses II's self proclaimed victory at Kadesh was actual a
> total humiliation according to the Hittites.
Which has what to do with Herodotus? Our knowledge of both sides' views
in this instance comes from the temples at Karnak and more
recently-discovered Hittite manuscripts.
> > as his idea that the Egyptians used slave labour to build the pyramids,
>
> That was NOT his idea. It is YOUR idea based on your guilt about the
> American salve trade.
? Where on Earth are you getting that from, and what logical sense
would it make considering that I'm not American and have never had any
involvement in slave trading. In any case, you are aware that countries
other than the US have been involved in slave-trading?
> This is waht Herodorus actually wrote. "Cheops succeeded to the throne, and
> plunged into all manner of wickedness. He closed the temples, and forbade
> the Egyptians to offer sacrifice, compelling them instead to labour, one and
> all, in his service. Some were required to drag blocks of stone down to the
> Nile from the quarries in the Arabian range of hills; others received the
> blocks after they had been conveyed in boats across the river, and drew them
> to the range of hills called the Libyan. A hundred thousand men laboured
> constantly, and were relieved every three months by a fresh lot. It took ten
> years' oppression of the people to make the causeway for the conveyance of
> the stones, a work not much inferior, in my judgment, to the pyramid
> itself."
>
> Herodotus account once again is borne out by modern research. The 20th
> century revisionist account of the enslavement of foreign peoples, such as
> the Hebrews
Who said anything about the enslavement of foreigners? The above
account states that the Egyptians were used as slave labourers - which
is not borne out by findings from the labourers' village near Giza,
which indicates that they were treated to unusually high-quality food,
medical care and ceremonial burial for Egyptian commoners.
>is an invention of Hollywood
Actually, that particular story dates back to the Old Testament, and so
predates Herodotus' account. Small business about a chap named Moses
freeing them from servitude and all that. Which, admittedly, probably
didn't happen, at least not in the way described - although the Hebrews
certainly were in Egypt their exodus appears to have been more a series
of dribs and drabs than a rebellious bunch of slaves upping sticks and
leaving under a single leader.
> > or various assertions about the habits of the Amazons). Granted, he was
> > probably better at recording actual events than historians and
> > archaeologists have traditionally given him credit for - both the
> > Amazons and Scythian horse burials were once dismissed as mere
> > inventions of his rather than historical accounts until remains of both
> > were uncovered in the last couple of decades - but he's not the best
> > reference for a definition of history. The very fact that people have
>
> Herodotus invented the definition of history.
That's like saying Hippocrates invented the definition of medicine, and
that any medicines developed along different lines should therefore be
rejected. Herodotus was an early historian who used a method
approximating what the study of history has since become. It doesn't
follow that his definition is complete - Herodotus was simply the first
to apply a systematic method to the study of history. You might compare
him with Sigmund Freud; Freud 'invented' psychology by being the first
to apply scientific methodologies to its study, but his methods were
primitive and most of his theories wrong.
Your attempt to discredit him
> is unfounded and indicative of irrational prejudice.
Discredit him? By mentioning that he was probably a better historian
than people have given him credit for, with examples? I'm merely
pointing out that he was a primitive historian with only a rudimentary
methodology for studying history.
> > tended to ignore what he wrote until they make a discovery and realise
> > "oh, Herodotus said that, didn't he?" is testament to his common
> > portrayal. He's lasted for no other reason than his works are the only
>
> It's a testament to 20th century revisionist politically motivated academic
> biggotry.
Where's the political motivation or the bigotry? Bandying phrases
around is not tantamount to an argument - you can't deny the points
I've made about Herodotus' image among historians, so you simply resort
to saying they're wrong, and indeed hurling insults at them. That
proves nothing.
Philip Bowles
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120004157.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>
> news:1119960181....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
>
>> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>> news:1119941937.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> - Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>>> Show quoted text -
>
>
>>>> pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>> Agamemnon wrote:
>>>>> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> > news:1119853527.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Byzantium was founded by the Greeks, it was occupied by the Greeks, it
>>culture was Greek, its religion was Greek and its language was Greek.
>
> None of which is inconsistent with what I said above, that the
> trappings of nationhood - the laws, government and political system -
> were Roman Italian in origin, making the Empire a Roman state rather
> than a Greek one.
Nonsence. There was no kingdom of Italy untill 1860.
The Roman empire was essentially a Greek empire and a continuation of the
Empire of Alexander. It had NOTHING in common with the Ango-Saxon invention
of nation states. Rome was multi-ethnic and consisted of provinces in order
of conquest. It was NOT greater Italy.
>
>>> Or approximately 600 years ago - as close to 600 as somewhat over 1100
>>> is to 1200 at any rate...
>>
>>
>>
>>The ottoman occupation lasted 380 years.
>
> Splitting hairs. Nowhere did I mention the Ottomans - I mentioned that
> Greece was under occupation, which was true before the Ottomans took
> over.
>
>>>Greece was under occupation
>>>
>>>
>>> By an empire with a significantly different culture from the one it
>>> replaced. Just like the Poles, Czechs and others under the Holy Roman
>>> and later Austro-Hungarian empires, when independence came the Greek
>>> national identity needed to be forged anew, albeit based on what had
>>
>>
>>No it did not. You might as wall make the same idiotic claim about the
>>Italian identity being forged since there was no Italian independence
>>until
>>1860. The Italians still knew they were Italians and the Greek still knew
>>they were Greeks.
>
> And both knew they were Europeans, particular Italians knew they were
You what ? There was no such thing as Europeans except as a geographic term.
The Greece considered themselves to be Greeks and more than half the
population lived in Asia-Minor, Syria and Egypt.
> Florentines or Romans etc. etc. Simple association with a geographical
The Italians never considered themselves as Romans. They hated the Romans.
> area does not constitute a national identity, just as there is
> presently no European national identity.
>
>>> gone before - no living Greek had known political independence for
>>> generations by that stage.
>>
>>
>>Stop trying to mix up Anglo-Saxon notions of nation states with European
>>notions of ethno-national identities.
>
> The mix-up appears to be your cofusion between ethnic and national
> identity - national identity is about more than cultural ties, it's
> about self-determination. Nowhere have I argued that Greeks lost their
> cultural identity, indeed I've pointed out the Greek cultural influence
> on the Byzantine Empire. Yet what they lacked throughout was national
> sovereignty, and that's not a minor consideration - it's the very
The Byzantine Empire was the empire of Greece. The Serbs did not control
Greece nor did the Bulgarians or the Armenians or the Egyptians. The Greeks
controlled Greece and Greece was from Sicily to Egypt.
Nation states were an Anglo-Saxon invention and unheard anywhere else until
the 19th century so your idea of sovereignty is inapplicable.
> reason separatist movements emerged in the first place, as an
> acknowledgment that having control of their destiny was important to
> their identity as Greeks. If they'd been happy to simply 'be Greek'
> while governed by Turks they'd still be under Turkish rule today.
Nonsense. The Greeks rebelled because they had no democratic rights
whatsoever under the ottomans and saw the ottomans were week. Christians
were not permitted to serve in the army, they were not permitted to hold any
kind of public office or carry out commerce and they were taxed more than
Muslims and systematically discriminated against and that's why the entire
Balkan peninsula rebelled simultaneously. Rebellions were going on
throughout the 380 years of ottoman occupation but after the French
revolution and American war of independence the Balkan peoples saw that
united they could win and govern themselves without any risk of replacing
oppression by the ottomans by oppression by the British or Italians or
French.
>
> Philip Bowles
>
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120014601.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Agamemnon wrote:
>> <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1120005161.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> At what point does an alternative history stop portraying real life?
>> >>
>> >>History does not portray real life. It's the analysis of the causes and
>> >>consequences of events. Read Herodotus introduction to his Herodotus.
>> >
>> > Just in case you've missed the past 2,000+ years, as you seem to have
>> > from your list of references, Herodotus is not generally regarded as
>> > being a particularly good historian - in large part because of his
>>
>> Sorry to disappoint you but actually he is regarded as completely
>> reliable
>> and accurate.
>
> By whom? I've already given examples of two cases in which his accounts
By people who are educated.
> were (admittedly in those cases) dismissed, and another in which he has
> been shown to have simply been wrong.
>
> Ignore the past 100 years of discredited 20th century
>> revisionism. Everything Herodotus said has now been proven
>> archaeologically.
>>
>> > habit of 'interpreting' what he observed or deduced from history (such
>>
>> He did nothing of the kind. He wrote down what he was told from both
>> sides
>> point of view and expressed his opinion based on those facts. Compare
>> that
>> to the one-sided inscriptions of the Assyrians and Egyptians that never
>> told
>> the whole truth. Ramses II's self proclaimed victory at Kadesh was actual
>> a
>> total humiliation according to the Hittites.
>
> Which has what to do with Herodotus? Our knowledge of both sides' views
> in this instance comes from the temples at Karnak and more
> recently-discovered Hittite manuscripts.
And our knowledge of both sides views also comes from Herodotus who did it
2500 years ago.
You tell me. It's from the source you have been using for you options about
history, the Hollywood movies.
> account states that the Egyptians were used as slave labourers - which
NO IT DOES NOT. It is your prejudice towards historical revisionists that
makes you say that despite the fact that the above quote says NOTHING of the
kind.
> is not borne out by findings from the labourers' village near Giza,
> which indicates that they were treated to unusually high-quality food,
> medical care and ceremonial burial for Egyptian commoners.
Herodotus said people were made to work for the king instead of being taxed
and that is what the evidence from Giza shows. Herodotus was right all the
long.
>
>>is an invention of Hollywood
>
> Actually, that particular story dates back to the Old Testament, and so
> predates Herodotus' account. Small business about a chap named Moses
> freeing them from servitude and all that. Which, admittedly, probably
> didn't happen, at least not in the way described - although the Hebrews
> certainly were in Egypt their exodus appears to have been more a series
> of dribs and drabs than a rebellious bunch of slaves upping sticks and
> leaving under a single leader.
>
>> > or various assertions about the habits of the Amazons). Granted, he was
>> > probably better at recording actual events than historians and
>> > archaeologists have traditionally given him credit for - both the
>> > Amazons and Scythian horse burials were once dismissed as mere
>> > inventions of his rather than historical accounts until remains of both
>> > were uncovered in the last couple of decades - but he's not the best
>> > reference for a definition of history. The very fact that people have
>>
>> Herodotus invented the definition of history.
>
> That's like saying Hippocrates invented the definition of medicine, and
> that any medicines developed along different lines should therefore be
> rejected. Herodotus was an early historian who used a method
> approximating what the study of history has since become. It doesn't
Herodotus definition still stands since it is the basis of history like
Einstein's postulates are the basis of Relativity.
> follow that his definition is complete - Herodotus was simply the first
> to apply a systematic method to the study of history. You might compare
> him with Sigmund Freud; Freud 'invented' psychology by being the first
> to apply scientific methodologies to its study, but his methods were
> primitive and most of his theories wrong.
Unlike Herodotus who was right all the long because he recorded actual facts
not pure speculations like Freud.
>
> Your attempt to discredit him
>> is unfounded and indicative of irrational prejudice.
>
> Discredit him? By mentioning that he was probably a better historian
> than people have given him credit for, with examples? I'm merely
> pointing out that he was a primitive historian with only a rudimentary
> methodology for studying history.
And thats all he needed because history is facts.
>
>> > tended to ignore what he wrote until they make a discovery and realise
>> > "oh, Herodotus said that, didn't he?" is testament to his common
>> > portrayal. He's lasted for no other reason than his works are the only
>>
>> It's a testament to 20th century revisionist politically motivated
>> academic
>> biggotry.
>
> Where's the political motivation or the bigotry? Bandying phrases
If should be perfectly obvious given that Herodrus had been proven to be
correct and the revisionists clams about him have been proven wrong.
> around is not tantamount to an argument - you can't deny the points
> I've made about Herodotus' image among historians, so you simply resort
Among revisionists not historians.
pbo...@aol.com
Agamemnon wrote:
> <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1120014601.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Agamemnon wrote:
> >> <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1120005161.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>> At what point does an alternative history stop portraying real life?
> >> >>
> >> >>History does not portray real life. It's the analysis of the causes and
> >> >>consequences of events. Read Herodotus introduction to his Herodotus.
> >> >
> >> > Just in case you've missed the past 2,000+ years, as you seem to have
> >> > from your list of references, Herodotus is not generally regarded as
> >> > being a particularly good historian - in large part because of his
> >>
> >> Sorry to disappoint you but actually he is regarded as completely
> >> reliable
> >> and accurate.
> >
> > By whom? I've already given examples of two cases in which his accounts
>
> By people who are educated.
Which do not include the 20th Century historians and archaeologists,
presumably? Transparent attempts to patronise are no kind of answer.
> > Which has what to do with Herodotus? Our knowledge of both sides' views
> > in this instance comes from the temples at Karnak and more
> > recently-discovered Hittite manuscripts.
>
> And our knowledge of both sides views also comes from Herodotus who did it
> 2500 years ago.
A single secondary source whose reliability has been questioned.
Despite what you appear to belive, ancient Greek authors were no more
foolproof than later ones and their works do not hold some kind of
sacred status - no one is going to be overawed by the fact that one
work is attributed to Herodotus or some other well-known Greek writer
or give it a special status because it's several thousand years old;
without corroboration they will be treated with scepticism like
anything else. Herodotus has been treated no differently from any other
secondary source, and it has been the absence of corroborating evidence
for many of his accounts since the earliest days of archaeology which
has led many historians to discredit him as reliable.
> >> This is waht Herodorus actually wrote. "Cheops succeeded to the throne,
> >> and
> >> plunged into all manner of wickedness. He closed the temples, and forbade
> >> the Egyptians to offer sacrifice, compelling them instead to labour, one
> >> and
> >> all, in his service. Some were required to drag blocks of stone down to
> >> the
> >> Nile from the quarries in the Arabian range of hills; others received the
> >> blocks after they had been conveyed in boats across the river, and drew
> >> them
> >> to the range of hills called the Libyan. A hundred thousand men laboured
> >> constantly, and were relieved every three months by a fresh lot. It took
> >> ten
> >> years' oppression of the people to make the causeway for the conveyance
> >> of
> >> the stones, a work not much inferior, in my judgment, to the pyramid
> >> itself."
> >>
> >> Herodotus account once again is borne out by modern research. The 20th
> >> century revisionist account of the enslavement of foreign peoples, such
> >> as
> >> the Hebrews
> >
> > Who said anything about the enslavement of foreigners? The above
>
> You tell me. It's from the source you have been using for you options about
> history, the Hollywood movies.
I'm getting tired of your ludicrous inventions and assumptions - if you
want to argue against opinions you've invented, feel free, but unless
you can point to anything I've said that indicates I've used Hollywood
as source materials or any comment I've made about the enslavement of
foreigners by Egyptians, retract this statement. Not knowing how to
argue is one thing; inventing arguments quite another.
> > account states that the Egyptians were used as slave labourers - which
>
> NO IT DOES NOT. It is your prejudice towards historical revisionists that
> makes you say that despite the fact that the above quote says NOTHING of the
> kind.
Do you know how slavery is defined? Hint: "...compelling them ... to
labour..." captures the essence of it. Enforced servitude - Khufu
(Cheops) isn't described as giving the people the option of working as
labourers as a tax break, he's portrayed as forbidding them to do
anything but labour and "oppressing" them for ten years.
> > is not borne out by findings from the labourers' village near Giza,
> > which indicates that they were treated to unusually high-quality food,
> > medical care and ceremonial burial for Egyptian commoners.
>
> Herodotus said people were made to work for the king instead of being taxed
> and that is what the evidence from Giza shows.
The evidence from Giza shows a small, well-cared for workforce, not a
legion of slaves.
> > follow that his definition is complete - Herodotus was simply the first
> > to apply a systematic method to the study of history. You might compare
> > him with Sigmund Freud; Freud 'invented' psychology by being the first
> > to apply scientific methodologies to its study, but his methods were
> > primitive and most of his theories wrong.
>
> Unlike Herodotus who was right all the long because he recorded actual facts
> not pure speculations like Freud.
He recorded both - his records of events that occurred long before he
was writing (such as the construction of the pyramids) are speculative,
while the whole point of Freud's methodology was that it wasn't mere
specularion but was based on observation and experiment (i.e. was a
science). He's almost certainly more accurate than Freud was, even so.
> >
> > Your attempt to discredit him
> >> is unfounded and indicative of irrational prejudice.
> >
> > Discredit him? By mentioning that he was probably a better historian
> > than people have given him credit for, with examples? I'm merely
> > pointing out that he was a primitive historian with only a rudimentary
> > methodology for studying history.
>
> And thats all he needed because history is facts.
Do you remember what brought Herodotus into this discussion? Your claim
that history is not a record real life, but is simply an analysis of
the causes and consequences of historical events, citing Herodotus as
the reference. You have already given examples like the Persian War
indicating that Herodotus didn't actually follow this definition
anyway, and now you've downright contradicted the point you were trying
to make in the first place - that history is not a record of real life.
> >> > tended to ignore what he wrote until they make a discovery and realise
> >> > "oh, Herodotus said that, didn't he?" is testament to his common
> >> > portrayal. He's lasted for no other reason than his works are the only
> >>
> >> It's a testament to 20th century revisionist politically motivated
> >> academic
> >> biggotry.
> >
> > Where's the political motivation or the bigotry? Bandying phrases
>
> If should be perfectly obvious given that Herodrus had been proven to be
> correct and the revisionists clams about him have been proven wrong.
You're claiming that 'revisionists' were politically motivated to
discredit Herodotus in the first place because they were later proven
wrong for being revisionists? What's this, a revisionist with a TARDIS
who went back in time intent on ruining Herodotus' reputation after
being 'proved wrong'?
Philip Bowles
pbo...@aol.com
>>>>> Agamemnon wrote:
>>>>> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> > news:1119853527.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> trappings of nationhood - the laws, government and political system -
>> were Roman Italian in origin, making the Empire a Roman state rather
>> than a Greek one.
>
>
>
>Nonsence. There was no kingdom of Italy untill 1860.
Nor did I say there was. There was however a Roman empire originating
from a region of Italy that dominated both the peninsula and the
Balkans, with its own legal and political system that was installed. If
you're trying to claim that they were Greek merely because their
mythology and aspects of their culture were inspired by Greece, you may
as well say that Britain is part of France because the culture is
predominantly Norman French in origin.
>The Roman empire was essentially a Greek empire and a continuation of the
>Empire of Alexander. It had NOTHING in common with the Ango-Saxon invention
>of nation states. Rome was multi-ethnic and consisted of provinces in order
>of conquest.
Provinces ruled by governors installed by the Romans and according to
the Roman system, often Romanising the cultures they encountered in the
process (much of England being a case in point). You're still confusing
ethnicity with nationhood - the fact that the inhabitants of the Roman
Empire weren''t all (or even mostly) Italians is irrelevant, the empire
was under Roman rule with central authority vested in Rome, which
appointed and removed prefects, provided their armies and mandated what
they could and could not do with their province.
>>>No it did not. You might as wall make the same idiotic claim about the
>>>Italian identity being forged since there was no Italian independence
>>>until
>>>1860. The Italians still knew they were Italians and the Greek still knew
>>>they were Greeks.
>>
>>
>> And both knew they were Europeans, particular Italians knew they were
>>
>>
>>You what ? There was no such thing as Europeans except as a geographic term.
On the contrary, Europeans have always been more united in their sense
of culture than, say, Asians or Africans - the Crusades were motivated
and fought by European interests and European 'nationalism' rather than
by individual states. Henry VIII and other European rulers all aimed to
increase their influence within Europe. The Age of Discovery was an
exploration, scientific and land-grabbing 'arms race' between European
competitors. European philosophies and scientific advances were
developed alongside and in response to one another. Well into the
colonial era English, Dutch, French or Spanish abroad sought contact
with other Europeans rather than with their own countrymen specifically
and identified themselves as European - read contemporary accounts such
as The Voyage of the Beagle, A Naturalist in Borneo or works by the
Brooke family in Sarawak, for example. Just like the Greeks as a
people, Europe has long been bound by a shared religion and extensive
cultural exchange of ideas and peoples, particularly since for much of
European history most Europeans have been under occupation in one or
more of the major empires - Roman, Norman, Holy Roman, Byzantine, and
more briefly Napoleonic - exposing them to one another's cultures.
>> Florentines or Romans etc. etc. Simple association with a geographical
>
>
>The Italians never considered themselves as Romans. They hated the Romans.
Romans are people from Rome. A Roman from the Renaissance is as much a
Roman as one in a toga a millennium and a half earlier. The point is
that associations were made with their point of origin (which, in the
Italian cases, were self-governing city states).
>Nation states were an Anglo-Saxon invention and unheard anywhere else until
>the 19th century
This will astonish the French. Not to mention the Spanish, Portugese,
Dutch, former German states, Scandivnavian countries, Chinese,
Malaysians, Vietnamese, Koreans, Sri Lankans, Japanese, Nepalese...
Indeed it would surprise the pre-Byzantine Greeks, who as you noted
earlier had progressed from city states to a unified nation prior to
the Roman conquest.
>> reason separatist movements emerged in the first place, as an
>> acknowledgment that having control of their destiny was important to
>> their identity as Greeks. If they'd been happy to simply 'be Greek'
>> while governed by Turks they'd still be under Turkish rule today.
>
>
>Nonsense. The Greeks rebelled because they had no democratic rights
>whatsoever under the ottomans and saw the ottomans were week. Christians
>were not permitted to serve in the army, they were not permitted to hold any
>kind of public office or carry out commerce and they were taxed more than
>Muslims and systematically discriminated against and that's why the entire
>Balkan peninsula rebelled simultaneously.
But surely egalitarian democracy is a 19th Century French invention so
isn't applicable... It certainly wasn't the form practiced in ancient
Greece or Athens, where most of the population had no democratic
rights. Besides, if the Greeks had real self-government through the
Patriarchate under the Ottomans as you earlier claimed, this situation
wouldn't have arisen in the first place.
Philip Bowles
Glyn
> Glyn wrote:
> > and unambiguously bisexual, without a tinge of camp. A drama aimed in
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Oh really. Captain Jack is as camp as a row of tents.
He is not in the least bit camp. The Doctor plays it a bit camp at
times, but Captain Jack is pretty damned macho.
> > part at children, with a sexy bisexual man, and no-one at all seems to
> > mind. Things have changed a great deal.
>
> I mind, but clearly, anyone who does mind, does not get any opportunity
> to air their views aside from on the net, and you can be sure that it
> was a nancy boy who wrote that article.
Note the use of the phrase "seems to". You can never please everyone,
so naturally, there's always the chance that someone will complain. I
think they were drawing attention to the fact that there hasn't been a
campaign of letters complaining that it's outright disgusting (compare
the Jerry Springer musical, the Brass Eye 'Paedogeddon' special or the
first time there was a same-sex snog on some soap or other).
Glyn
> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> news:11199859...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
> >> Kids shows should show kids being nice to each other and their parents.
> >
> > Did you see that Simpson's episode where it was decided that "Itchy &
> > Scratchy" was far too violent, and it got toned down to showing the two
> > characters being nice to each other all the time? The kids quickly got
> > bored, turned off the telly and stepped blinking into the sunlight.
> >
> > If all kids' shows were to adopt this practice in real life, I expect
> > you'd get a similar result. Kids watching less TV in favour of going
> > outside more may be no bad thing, but it would have completely failed
> > as a morality play.
>
> Nope. It would have succeeded by getting kids to be nice to each other.
Read my paragraphs. Both of them. It hasn't succeeded in getting the
kids to be nice to each other if they've got bored with the preaching
and are now ignoring it altogether.
> >> Watch the Vicky Pollard scotches on Little Brittan. They are self
> >> explanatorily.
> >
> > How is laughing at Vicky Pollard behaving like a stupid slapper any
> > different from laughing at Jackie Tyler behaving like a stupid slapper?
>
> Vicky Pollard is played for laughs. Jackie Tyler is not
You still claim that that scene wasn't in any way amusing?
Glyn
> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> news:111998772...@dyke.uk.clara.net...
> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
> >> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> >> news:111994245...@doris.uk.clara.net...
> >> > And any society that's not a perfectly ideal moral society will also
> >> > contain people who remain unconvinced by laws pertaining to be from a
> >> > higher power. Which of the following are going to persuade *more*
> >> > people?
> >> >
> >> > Follow this list of what is accepted behaviour, because failing to do
> >> > so will result in us punishing you (and possibly attempting to
> >> > rehabilitate you) like we did with the last rulebreaker.
> >> >
> >> > or
> >> >
> >> > Follow this list of what is accepted behaviour, because $DEITY says so
> >> > and will otherwise punish you in some physically improbable manner many
> >> > several years later.
> >>
> >> Neither.
> >>
> >> Treat your neighbour as you would like to be treated yourself, is the one
> >> that works and the one advocated by Plato (Gorgias) and by Christ.
> >
> > I know that the third is obviously the ideal model for society - but I
> > was asking which of the first two is more likely to work. If the
>
> As Socrates would have said, that's a stupid question. You already know what
> is the right option and that is option 3 therefore options 1 and 2 are not a
> choice.
I know it's a poor choice, and that the ideal option is number 3. But
number 3 doesn't make for especially entertaining fiction - you said
yourself that you like to see divine intervention, along the lines of
option 2, in fiction. And I am arguing that a work of fiction employing
option 1 is still better than one employing number 2 at persuading those
who don't believe in (the same) God(s).
> > idea is to stop someone behaving badly, but that person is too selfish
> > to care that it damages the rest of society, then the third one isn't
> > really going to help, while some form of deterrent may.
>
> I disagree. The dialogue of Gorgias covers the issue so I suggest you read
> it.
You've presented me with theory, but let me give you a real-life
example. I don't believe in any god, so no amount of "god will punish
you" is going to stop me from cycling in a dangerous manner, downloading
mp3s or getting extremely drunk. OTOH, the threat of an accident, a
stonking great fine or a nasty hangover *are* going to stop me doing
those things.
No amount of namedropping of great philosophical works is going to
change this outlook unless people read it themselves - and even if I
were to read it and decide that "woah, shit, god's punishment for
downloading mp3s is *much* worse than anything the RIAA can throw at
me", that wouldn't stop anybody else (who can't be arsed to read the
entire history of philosophy) from not being afraid of divine
punishment.
> >> > "Do as I say or I'll punish you" is
> >> > less effective than society figuring out for themselves a system of
> >> > justice that works.
> >>
> >> Nope. That might be how your God lives but its not how my Gods live. Each
> >> God to his own, but the can be persuaded if it suits them.
> >
> > Yes, it's only based on *my* belief in what higher powers may be
> > capable. My point is, it doesn't matter whether *you* believe in a
> > higher power - plenty of people don't believe in one, or don't agree
> > with you on what moral standards it has, so they're going to find a
> > demonstrably real justice system (no matter how ineffective or
> > inappropriate it may be), that was put together with this express
> > purpose, a much more convincing deterrent.
>
> Then they have been miss-educated.
That doesn't stop them from being members of society. You need to find
a system that works on them (or send them all back to school/church/
their parents for moral redirection).
> >> >> Works of fiction are not about portraying real life. They are about ideals.
> >> >> Real life is for the history books.
> >> >
> >> > How about the kind of "What if..." speculative fiction based on
> >> > alternative histories (like one in which alien technology had the
> >> > chance to drastically alter WWII)? Should that be forbidden, too?
> >>
> >> Just as long as it has nothing to do with portraying real life there is
> >> nothing wrong with it.
> >
> > At what point does an alternative history stop portraying real life?
>
> History does not portray real life. It's the analysis of the causes and
> consequences of events. Read Herodotus introduction to his Herodotus.
And yet a couple of posts ago, you said that "Real life is for the
history books."
> > If you're going to make some life-affirming, morally uplifting,
> > feel-good revelation to the audience, how does putting it in a realistic
> > setting reduce that effect? IMHO it would actually make it *more*
> > effective.
>
> I already told you that you cannot portray real life in drama because it
> encourages deviant behaviour by showing you it.[...]
And the rest of your argument stems from there. But I've already told
you that showing immoral behaviour doesn't necessarily encourage it. We
appear to have reached a stalemate.
pbo...@aol.com
Glyn wrote:
> Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
> > "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> > news:111998772...@dyke.uk.clara.net...
> > > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
> > >> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:111994245...@doris.uk.clara.net...
> > History does not portray real life. It's the analysis of the causes and
> > consequences of events. Read Herodotus introduction to his Herodotus.
>
> And yet a couple of posts ago, you said that "Real life is for the
> history books."
Damn, if I'd noticed that I could have avoided the whole Herodotus
sideline...
> > > If you're going to make some life-affirming, morally uplifting,
> > > feel-good revelation to the audience, how does putting it in a realistic
> > > setting reduce that effect? IMHO it would actually make it *more*
> > > effective.
> >
> > I already told you that you cannot portray real life in drama because it
> > encourages deviant behaviour by showing you it.[...]
>
> And the rest of your argument stems from there. But I've already told
> you that showing immoral behaviour doesn't necessarily encourage it. We
> appear to have reached a stalemate.
I've noticed the same. He keeps making the same assertions without
support and so we have to make the same points again and again, which
he seemingly fails to read and/or understand, and so the cycle begins
anew.
Philip Bowles
Agamemnon
> Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
>> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
>> news:11199859...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
>> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
>> >> Kids shows should show kids being nice to each other and their
>> >> parents.
>> >
>> > Did you see that Simpson's episode where it was decided that "Itchy &
>> > Scratchy" was far too violent, and it got toned down to showing the two
>> > characters being nice to each other all the time? The kids quickly got
>> > bored, turned off the telly and stepped blinking into the sunlight.
>> >
>> > If all kids' shows were to adopt this practice in real life, I expect
>> > you'd get a similar result. Kids watching less TV in favour of going
>> > outside more may be no bad thing, but it would have completely failed
>> > as a morality play.
>>
>> Nope. It would have succeeded by getting kids to be nice to each other.
>
> Read my paragraphs. Both of them. It hasn't succeeded in getting the
> kids to be nice to each other if they've got bored with the preaching
> and are now ignoring it altogether.
They have watched it, they've seen the characters getting on with each other
and now they are going out and trying to be nice to each other themselves.
>
>> >> Watch the Vicky Pollard scotches on Little Brittan. They are self
>> >> explanatorily.
>> >
>> > How is laughing at Vicky Pollard behaving like a stupid slapper any
>> > different from laughing at Jackie Tyler behaving like a stupid slapper?
>>
>> Vicky Pollard is played for laughs. Jackie Tyler is not
>
> You still claim that that scene wasn't in any way amusing?
It was embarrassing.
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120022102....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>> Agamemnon wrote:
>>>>>> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> > news:1119853527.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> None of which is inconsistent with what I said above, that the
>>> trappings of nationhood - the laws, government and political system -
>>> were Roman Italian in origin, making the Empire a Roman state rather
>>> than a Greek one.
>>
>>
>>
>>Nonsence. There was no kingdom of Italy untill 1860.
>
> Nor did I say there was. There was however a Roman empire originating
> from a region of Italy that dominated both the peninsula and the
> Balkans, with its own legal and political system that was installed. If
The Roman legal and political system originated from Greece. The Achaeans
give the Italians their constitutions and the Arcadian's their religion.
Rome was founded by the decedents of Trojan Greeks who first originated from
Crete, moved to Troy and then to Italy. Everything the Italians knew about
Mathematics and Philosophy came from Pythagoras and we must forget that half
of Italy was a Greek colony of Arcadians, Achaeans, Messenains,
Lacedaemonians, and Corinthians with the Corinthians even giving Rome its
last kings. Oh and don't forget the Cochians and Tyrsenoi of Italy weren't
Italians either.
> you're trying to claim that they were Greek merely because their
> mythology and aspects of their culture were inspired by Greece, you may
> as well say that Britain is part of France because the culture is
> predominantly Norman French in origin.
The Normans were not even French. They were Germanic like the Saxons.
>
>>The Roman empire was essentially a Greek empire and a continuation of the
>>Empire of Alexander. It had NOTHING in common with the Ango-Saxon
>>invention
>>of nation states. Rome was multi-ethnic and consisted of provinces in
>>order
>>of conquest.
>
> Provinces ruled by governors installed by the Romans and according to
Some of the governors of the Romans provinces such as Palestine were Greeks
and I think the Greeks were even allowed to elect their own governors and
were given seats in the senate at some point.
> the Roman system, often Romanising the cultures they encountered in the
> process (much of England being a case in point). You're still confusing
> ethnicity with nationhood - the fact that the inhabitants of the Roman
You are still trying to apply the idea of an Anglo-Saxon nation state to
somewhere it does not belong. Rome was multi-ethnic.
> Empire weren''t all (or even mostly) Italians is irrelevant, the empire
> was under Roman rule with central authority vested in Rome, which
> appointed and removed prefects, provided their armies and mandated what
> they could and could not do with their province.
Oh dear, dear, dear. The majority of the Romans armies were made up of the
local populations and by the time Rome fell most of them were Greeks.
>
>>>>No it did not. You might as wall make the same idiotic claim about the
>>>>Italian identity being forged since there was no Italian independence
>>>>until
>>>>1860. The Italians still knew they were Italians and the Greek still
>>>>knew
>>>>they were Greeks.
>>>
>>>
>>> And both knew they were Europeans, particular Italians knew they were
>>>
>>>
>>>You what ? There was no such thing as Europeans except as a geographic
>>>term.
>
> On the contrary, Europeans have always been more united in their sense
> of culture than, say, Asians or Africans - the Crusades were motivated
Which is of course is all a load of nonsense, but now I know who kind of
books you have been reading and they are clearly not history books, by real
historians, but political books
> and fought by European interests and European 'nationalism' rather than
Errm... no. The Crusades as the name suggests were motivated by Muslim
attacks and persecutions against Christians, and then by the desire of the
Franks and Venetians for profit.
> by individual states. Henry VIII and other European rulers all aimed to
Other Frankish rulers of western Europe.
> increase their influence within Europe. The Age of Discovery was an
> exploration, scientific and land-grabbing 'arms race' between European
> competitors.
That would suggest that Europe was disunited rather than united as you
claim.
>European philosophies and scientific advances were
> developed alongside and in response to one another. Well into the
No actually they were brought to Spain by the Arabs, who obtained them from
the Greeks and were then translated into Latin, after the Arabs wrote
critiques on them. Then at the time of the fall of Constantinople thousands
of Greek ships filled with fleeing refugees and thousands of Greek books
brought the original texts to western Europe and caused the Renaissance.
> colonial era English, Dutch, French or Spanish abroad sought contact
> with other Europeans rather than with their own countrymen specifically
> and identified themselves as European - read contemporary accounts such
> as The Voyage of the Beagle, A Naturalist in Borneo or works by the
> Brooke family in Sarawak, for example. Just like the Greeks as a
> people, Europe has long been bound by a shared religion and extensive
> cultural exchange of ideas and peoples, particularly since for much of
> European history most Europeans have been under occupation in one or
> more of the major empires - Roman, Norman, Holy Roman, Byzantine, and
> more briefly Napoleonic - exposing them to one another's cultures.
>
>>> Florentines or Romans etc. etc. Simple association with a geographical
>>
>>
>>The Italians never considered themselves as Romans. They hated the Romans.
>
> Romans are people from Rome. A Roman from the Renaissance is as much a
> Roman as one in a toga a millennium and a half earlier. The point is
Nope. The only people to call themselves Romans after the fall of Rome were
the Byzantine Greeks (not the Bulgarians or Serbs but only the Greeks).
> that associations were made with their point of origin (which, in the
> Italian cases, were self-governing city states).
The point is that the Italians knew that they were Italians (not Romans) and
worked coactive as Italians while they were living in city states long
before the kingdom of Italy was founded as a nation-state.
>
>>Nation states were an Anglo-Saxon invention and unheard anywhere else
>>until
>>the 19th century
>
> This will astonish the French. Not to mention the Spanish, Portugese,
> Dutch, former German states, Scandivnavian countries, Chinese,
Spain was a collection of city states including once ruled by Arabs until
the Franks came along and conquered it, and then it was two opposing
kingdoms before it became a nation state. But even before that the Spaniards
still knew the were Spanish not Arabs or Portuguese. I don't see what the
Chinese have to do with it. All the rest were conquered by the Franks.
> Malaysians, Vietnamese, Koreans, Sri Lankans, Japanese, Nepalese...
> Indeed it would surprise the pre-Byzantine Greeks, who as you noted
> earlier had progressed from city states to a unified nation prior to
> the Roman conquest.
I think you'll find that China was a collection of provinces that were ruled
as an empire so no different from Byzantium. Japan was an island ruled by
rival war lords when the Europeans found it. I'm not sure about the rest.
>
>>> reason separatist movements emerged in the first place, as an
>>> acknowledgment that having control of their destiny was important to
>>> their identity as Greeks. If they'd been happy to simply 'be Greek'
>>> while governed by Turks they'd still be under Turkish rule today.
>>
>>
>>Nonsense. The Greeks rebelled because they had no democratic rights
>>whatsoever under the ottomans and saw the ottomans were week. Christians
>>were not permitted to serve in the army, they were not permitted to hold
>>any
>>kind of public office or carry out commerce and they were taxed more than
>>Muslims and systematically discriminated against and that's why the entire
>>Balkan peninsula rebelled simultaneously.
>
> But surely egalitarian democracy is a 19th Century French invention so
> isn't applicable... It certainly wasn't the form practiced in ancient
> Greece or Athens, where most of the population had no democratic
> rights.
That is wrong. All of the Athenian (male) population had the right to vote.
Non citizens who did business or worked or passed though in Athens had no
right to vote as you would expect. If these "foreigners" were given the
right to vote it would be like giving all of the tourists on the Greek
islands today who in the summer outnumber the local populations the right to
vote and that is ridiculous and unjust.
>Besides, if the Greeks had real self-government through the
> Patriarchate under the Ottomans as you earlier claimed, this situation
I didn't say the Greeks had proper self-government. I said the Patriarchate
had de-facto sovereignty over the Geeks. The Christian Patriarchates were
the only way the Christian peoples under ottoman occupation could organise
their own affairs such as educating themselves (and even this had to be done
in secret underground schools) and bargaining for their rights.
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120020399.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Agamemnon wrote:
>> <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1120014601.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Agamemnon wrote:
>> >> <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1120005161.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >>> At what point does an alternative history stop portraying real
>> >> >>> life?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>History does not portray real life. It's the analysis of the causes
>> >> >>and
>> >> >>consequences of events. Read Herodotus introduction to his
>> >> >>Herodotus.
>> >> >
>> >> > Just in case you've missed the past 2,000+ years, as you seem to
>> >> > have
>> >> > from your list of references, Herodotus is not generally regarded as
>> >> > being a particularly good historian - in large part because of his
>> >>
>> >> Sorry to disappoint you but actually he is regarded as completely
>> >> reliable
>> >> and accurate.
>> >
>> > By whom? I've already given examples of two cases in which his accounts
>>
>> By people who are educated.
>
> Which do not include the 20th Century historians and archaeologists,
> presumably? Transparent attempts to patronise are no kind of answer.
Which include real 20th Century historians, not 20th century political
revisionists
>
>> > Which has what to do with Herodotus? Our knowledge of both sides' views
>> > in this instance comes from the temples at Karnak and more
>> > recently-discovered Hittite manuscripts.
>>
>> And our knowledge of both sides views also comes from Herodotus who did
>> it
>> 2500 years ago.
>
> A single secondary source whose reliability has been questioned.
Questioned only by the uneducated.
> Despite what you appear to belive, ancient Greek authors were no more
> foolproof than later ones and their works do not hold some kind of
> sacred status - no one is going to be overawed by the fact that one
Obviously most of what you have read of them is from unreliable, inaccurate,
and politically motivated quaternary and quintessential revisionist sources,
rather than your own study of the original texts.
> work is attributed to Herodotus or some other well-known Greek writer
> or give it a special status because it's several thousand years old;
> without corroboration they will be treated with scepticism like
Herodotus was corroborated by his contemporaries and those that followed
him.
> anything else. Herodotus has been treated no differently from any other
> secondary source, and it has been the absence of corroborating evidence
> for many of his accounts since the earliest days of archaeology which
> has led many historians to discredit him as reliable.
No. These were not historians but political commentators and revisionists.
Read a proper history book and not some 5th hand political science-fiction
trying to pose as history.
I've already shown it in your attempt to discredit Herodotus Egyptian
history. Everything you came up with about slaver is from Hollywood
historical fiction not from what Herodotus actually wrote.
> as source materials or any comment I've made about the enslavement of
> foreigners by Egyptians, retract this statement. Not knowing how to
> argue is one thing; inventing arguments quite another.
>
>> > account states that the Egyptians were used as slave labourers - which
>>
>> NO IT DOES NOT. It is your prejudice towards historical revisionists that
>> makes you say that despite the fact that the above quote says NOTHING of
>> the
>> kind.
>
> Do you know how slavery is defined? Hint: "...compelling them ... to
> labour..." captures the essence of it. Enforced servitude - Khufu
That definition has NOTHING to do with labour in ancient times. Its a
definition only applicable to the American slave industry. The word slave is
not even ancient Greek. A doulos in Greek was a WORKER and just that. Most
douloi were bonded labourers, ie they worked for their bed and board and
education or training but there were also douloi that were paid to work or
hired themselves out.
> (Cheops) isn't described as giving the people the option of working as
> labourers as a tax break, he's portrayed as forbidding them to do
> anything but labour and "oppressing" them for ten years.
In ancient times anyone that had to work voluntarily or involuntarily was
considered as being oppressed or under oppression or unhappy, even
merchants, self-employed artisans and farmers who farmed their own land.
What everyone wanted was to own enough land to be able to rent it out to
others to farm it for you.
>
>> > is not borne out by findings from the labourers' village near Giza,
>> > which indicates that they were treated to unusually high-quality food,
>> > medical care and ceremonial burial for Egyptian commoners.
>>
>> Herodotus said people were made to work for the king instead of being
>> taxed
>> and that is what the evidence from Giza shows.
>
> The evidence from Giza shows a small, well-cared for workforce, not a
> legion of slaves.
That's YOUR PREJUDICE on what you think slavery is and your prejudice is
based on your guilt about the American slave trade. (And by you I mean you
and the people/authors/Hollywood films that have formed your opinion.)
Servitude in ancient times was NOT what you thin of as slavery today. Giza
shows everything that Herodotus described.
>
>> > follow that his definition is complete - Herodotus was simply the first
>> > to apply a systematic method to the study of history. You might compare
>> > him with Sigmund Freud; Freud 'invented' psychology by being the first
>> > to apply scientific methodologies to its study, but his methods were
>> > primitive and most of his theories wrong.
>>
>> Unlike Herodotus who was right all the long because he recorded actual
>> facts
>> not pure speculations like Freud.
>
> He recorded both - his records of events that occurred long before he
> was writing (such as the construction of the pyramids) are speculative,
Nope. Herodotus was around at the time of the Persian War and within living
memory of Pissistratus. Everything he wrote was based on primary accounts
including the building of the Pyramids which he was right about.
> while the whole point of Freud's methodology was that it wasn't mere
> specularion but was based on observation and experiment (i.e. was a
> science). He's almost certainly more accurate than Freud was, even so.
Was a pseudo-science.
>
>> >
>> > Your attempt to discredit him
>> >> is unfounded and indicative of irrational prejudice.
>> >
>> > Discredit him? By mentioning that he was probably a better historian
>> > than people have given him credit for, with examples? I'm merely
>> > pointing out that he was a primitive historian with only a rudimentary
>> > methodology for studying history.
>>
>> And thats all he needed because history is facts.
>
> Do you remember what brought Herodotus into this discussion? Your claim
> that history is not a record real life, but is simply an analysis of
> the causes and consequences of historical events, citing Herodotus as
> the reference. You have already given examples like the Persian War
> indicating that Herodotus didn't actually follow this definition
> anyway, and now you've downright contradicted the point you were trying
Go and read Herodotus for yourself. Half the text is devoted to the causes
and consequences of the war, and the rest is a disruption of the war itself
to show everything in perspective and back up Herodotus arguments.
> to make in the first place - that history is not a record of real life.
>
>> >> > tended to ignore what he wrote until they make a discovery and
>> >> > realise
>> >> > "oh, Herodotus said that, didn't he?" is testament to his common
>> >> > portrayal. He's lasted for no other reason than his works are the
>> >> > only
>> >>
>> >> It's a testament to 20th century revisionist politically motivated
>> >> academic
>> >> biggotry.
>> >
>> > Where's the political motivation or the bigotry? Bandying phrases
>>
>> If should be perfectly obvious given that Herodrus had been proven to be
>> correct and the revisionists clams about him have been proven wrong.
>
> You're claiming that 'revisionists' were politically motivated to
> discredit Herodotus in the first place because they were later proven
> wrong for being revisionists? What's this, a revisionist with a TARDIS
> who went back in time intent on ruining Herodotus' reputation after
> being 'proved wrong'?
They were proven wrong because the were wrong. What motivated them to be
wrong was their own prejudice. The did not even quote what Herodotus
actually said but what they thought he should have said, for example based
on their guilt of the American slave trade for which they were acting as
apologists so jumped at the chance to accuse the ancients of doing the same,
when in actuality they did not, by dissembling Herodotus, and then other
writers using this politically motivated garbage as a source rather than
using the original text added to the fallacy by basing their prejudiced
account of the period on that source rather than on the original text
Herodotus wrote.
>
> Philip Bowles
>
pbo...@aol.com
>
>
>news:1120022102....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>>>>> pbow...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>> Agamemnon wrote:
>>>>>> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> > news:1119853527.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> None of which is inconsistent with what I said above, that the
>>> trappings of nationhood - the laws, government and political system -
>>> were Roman Italian in origin, making the Empire a Roman state rather
>>> than a Greek one.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nonsence. There was no kingdom of Italy untill 1860.
>>
>>
>> Nor did I say there was. There was however a Roman empire originating
>> from a region of Italy that dominated both the peninsula and the
>> Balkans, with its own legal and political system that was installed. If
>The Roman legal and political system originated from Greece.
Originated. The French legal system originated from Rome, but has since
been heavily modified. The system 'returned' to Greece was not the one
the Romans had inherited from it in the first place - for a start the
Roman Republic was dead by then and the political system was an
imperial dictatorship.
> Rome was founded by the decedents of Trojan Greeks who first originated from
>Crete, moved to Troy and then to Italy.
All cities and countries were founded by people from somewhere else,
pretty much by definition. In the case of Rome it was millennium or
more earlier; quite apart from any cultural influences the original
settlers had inherited from the Trojans and resident Italians, Roman
culture had plenty of time to take on its own identity.
>Everything the Italians knew about
>Mathematics and Philosophy came from Pythagoras
Fortunately not his crackpot religion, however.
>> you're trying to claim that they were Greek merely because their
>>mythology and aspects of their culture were inspired by Greece, you may
>> as well say that Britain is part of France because the culture is
>> predominantly Norman French in origin.
>
>The Normans were not even French. They were Germanic like the Saxons.
Ethnically, but in the three generations they'd spent in France they'd
adopted French language, culture, architecture and feudal politics and
saw the Germanic world (Britain included) as backward. To all intents
and purposes, their conquests out of France, including that of Britain,
were French conquests.
>>>The Roman empire was essentially a Greek empire and a continuation of the
>>>Empire of Alexander. It had NOTHING in common with the Ango-Saxon
>>>invention
>>>of nation states. Rome was multi-ethnic and consisted of provinces in
>>>order
>>>of conquest.
>>
>>
>> Provinces ruled by governors installed by the Romans and according to
>
>
>Some of the governors of the Romans provinces such as Palestine were Greeks
>and I think the Greeks were even allowed to elect their own governors and
>were given seats in the senate at some point.
Interesting; I hadn't heard of the Greeks being granted any exceptions
to the normal Roman process of government. It's not impossible, but I'd
like to see a source for that.
>> the Roman system, often Romanising the cultures they encountered in the
>> process (much of England being a case in point). You're still confusing
>> ethnicity with nationhood - the fact that the inhabitants of the Roman
>
>
>You are still trying to apply the idea of an Anglo-Saxon nation state to
>somewhere it does not belong. Rome was multi-ethnic.
You don't seem to be grasping that the ethnicity of the population is
an irrelevance in this context; an ethnicity and a nation are not the
same thing, nor are they mutually exclusive - the fact that a state
contains multiple ethnicities doesn't preclude it from being a single
nation. A state is a political entity whose character depends on its
administrative and legal culture - England didn't become Dutch when
William of Orange took over; it remained an English state with English
political infrastructure and an English political tradition. Nor has
Britain stopped being British as the society has become more
multi-ethnic or during the Imperial period when ethnic Britons
represented a minority of the Imperial population. All of this was as
true of Rome, and like the British Empire the Roman Imperial
infrastructure followed the model exported from Italy throughout its
territory - it was not a new invention or a novel concept in the 19th
Century.
>> Empire weren''t all (or even mostly) Italians is irrelevant, the empire
>> was under Roman rule with central authority vested in Rome, which
>> appointed and removed prefects, provided their armies and mandated what
>> they could and could not do with their province.
>
>Oh dear, dear, dear. The majority of the Romans armies were made up of the
>local populations
But not raised by local governors; the Senate authorised the creation
of armies, and governors need to travel or make supplication to the
Senate to be granted the authority to raise forces for riot control or
military adventures. Maybe 'provided their armies' was a misleading
phrase - the point was that the provinces were beholden to the central
government for their defence.
>>>You what ? There was no such thing as Europeans except as a geographic
>>>term.
>> On the contrary, Europeans have always been more united in their sense
>> of culture than, say, Asians or Africans - the Crusades were motivated
>
>
>Which is of course is all a load of nonsense,
You're good at these baseless blanket statements, aren't you? I take it
you have extensive experience of African and Asian cultures across the
spectrum? I've certainly travelled enough in Asia to appreciate how
different those cultures are from one another, quite aside from my
knowledge of Asian history and, to a lesser extent, African tribal
identities. In much of Asia populations have been more sedentary than
those in Europe, without the migration and mixing of cultural
traditions, there is no unifying religion, ethnicity or system of
government, and in later centuries with the isolation of Japan, China
and India from the rest of the world little exchange of ideas and
technologies.
but now I know who kind of
>books you have been reading and they are clearly not history books, by real
>historians,
Well, they aren't by Herodotus if that's your measure...
> but political books
In what way is the description of historical contact, cultural and
technological exchange and pan-European events political? You can feel
free to agree with my conclusion that Europe is culturally unified, but
which of the premises - the commonality of religion, the Indo-European
language group, systems of government and Caucasian ethnicities, the
exchange of political, philosphical, religious and scientific ideas,
the occupation of different nations by one another, and the shared
history - can you deny?
> and fought by European interests and European 'nationalism' rather than
>
>
>Errm... no. The Crusades as the name suggests were motivated by Muslim
>attacks and persecutions against Christians,
Therein lies the clue. By the time of the Crusades, with Christianity
replaced by Islam in most of the Middle East, Christianity was
effectively confined to Europe - a defining feature of European
culture.
and then by the desire of the
>Franks and Venetians for profit.
Component national contingents were certainly motivated by a desire to
grab land and particularly the spice routes, and Muslim occupation was
as a good an excuse as any. However the point is that Europe as a whole
rallied to a cause against a common enemy, just as the Greeks
eventually did against the Persians - most of Europe wasn't threatened
by Muslim attacks on Tyre or Acre
>> by individual states. Henry VIII and other European rulers all aimed to
>
>
>Other Frankish rulers of western Europe.
Granted, the similarities are most pronounced in Western Europe, but
even restricting it to this area the point still stands - it's as
meaningful to talk of European cultural identity as it is to talk about
Greek or Italian identity, without any implication of nationhood. Which
returns us to my original point that the fact that the Greeks were
thinking of themselves as 'Greek' in association with their
geographical and cultural heritage is not the same as stating that they
had a national identity as Greeks.
> increase their influence within Europe. The Age of Discovery was an
> exploration, scientific and land-grabbing 'arms race' between European
> competitors.
>That would suggest that Europe was disunited rather than united as you
>claim.
Culturally united; are you implying that the Greeks never fought or
competed among themselves while still calling themselves Greek?
Europe's situation is much the same as that of the Greek, Italian or
German states prior to unification - Europeans share a common cultural
heritage, a common history and a common religion and mythology - all
the things you highlighted as shaping Greek identity prior to
unification.
>>European philosophies and scientific advances were
>> developed alongside and in response to one another. Well into the
>
>
>No actually they were brought to Spain by the Arabs, who obtained them from
>the Greeks and were then translated into Latin, after the Arabs wrote
>critiques on them.
I wasn't referring purely to Greek philosophies - Europe has developed
its own philosophical tradition since the fall of Greece, from
Descartes onwards. The debates about 'continental' rationalism and
'British' empiricism were cross-border European debates that developed
in direct response to one another, as were ruminations on the nature of
consciousness and later works on social and political philosophy. The
Greeks did not think everything that would ever be thought or discover
every principle that would ever be discovered (in fact, the progress of
European science and philosophy was hampered by the Church's dogmatic
insistence that the works of Aristotle represented the pinnacle of
knowledge and any departure from his ideas was blasphemous) - there
have been developments since, including in areas like the philosophy of
language and of science which were never considered by the Greeks (not
to mention the philosophy of religion examining Christian theology). If
the Greeks had developed the same ideas as Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Kant,
Leibniz, Spinoza, Voltaire and countless others we wouldn't still use
them as authorities today, but would be using the original Greek
writers. They didn't - this was a philosophical culture based squarely
in Western Europe, and as that selection of authors shows they came
from all the major centres within Western Europe - France, Britain, the
German provinces and the Netherlands just from that selection.
>Then at the time of the fall of Constantinople thousands
>of Greek ships filled with fleeing refugees and thousands of Greek books
>brought the original texts to western Europe and caused the Renaissance.
The philosophies I'm referring to are largely post-Renaissance.
> that associations were made with their point of origin (which, in the
> Italian cases, were self-governing city states).
>
>
>The point is that the Italians knew that they were Italians (not Romans) and
>worked coactive as Italians while they were living in city states long
>before the kingdom of Italy was founded as a nation-state.
This is just retreading a point you made earlier about the Greeks doing
the same prior to the Byzantine era, which remains as irrelevant to the
points at hand which were about Greece's fate during and following the
Roman period, not beforehand.
>>Nation states were an Anglo-Saxon invention and unheard anywhere else
>>until
>>the 19th century
> This will astonish the French. Not to mention the Spanish, Portugese,
> Dutch, former German states, Scandivnavian countries, Chinese,
>
>Spain was a collection of city states including once ruled by Arabs until
>the Franks came along and conquered it, and then it was two opposing
>kingdoms before it became a nation state.
>
Ah. Are you defining a 'nation state' as a modern democratic nation
rather than any unified political entity? If so, that isn't the
conception I'm using. A kingdom is as much a nation as a modern
democracy - as I said earlier the defining feature of nationhood is
self-government - government along lines chosen by members of the
national community, be they kings or voters. This is what the Greeks
did not have - they were governed along lines imposed on them by their
country's occupiers.
> But even before that the Spaniards
>still knew the were Spanish not Arabs or Portuguese. I don't see what the
>Chinese have to do with it. All the rest were conquered by the Franks.
You seem stuck with the idea that cultures, including political
cultures, are static - the fact that the Franks conquered what is now
France over a millennium ago has no relevance (particularly since
'France' did not exist before that point). France as a national entity
has been ruled by French monarchs and republics since its foundation as
a nation.
>> Malaysians, Vietnamese, Koreans, Sri Lankans, Japanese, Nepalese...
>> Indeed it would surprise the pre-Byzantine Greeks, who as you noted
>> earlier had progressed from city states to a unified nation prior to
>> the Roman conquest.
>
>
>I think you'll find that China was a collection of provinces that were ruled
>as an empire so no different from Byzantium.
I'm not making any claim that Byzantium wasn't a valid nation - I've
simply been pointing out that it was not, at its heart, a Greek nation
but a Roman one. While China is multi-ethnic, its inhabitants (bar the
Taiwanese and Tibetans) are unified by a sense of Chinese identity
*and* are ruled by a Chinese governmental system, and save for a couple
of short periods under foreign occupation this has been true, if not
since the time of Xin, then certainly in recent centuries and recent
dynasties.
>Japan was an island ruled by
>rival war lords when the Europeans found it.
There was an interesting series on the History Channel about Japanese
history just before I left the UK. Japan had been united, albeit only
for a short time, by the time of European contact (save perhaps for a
few early Dutch missionaries) - the Japanese shogunate was installed in
the late 16th or early 17th Century, as I recall, certainly well before
the 19th. Even in its disunited feudal phase Japan had an Emperor,
although the title was effectively no more than an honorific and the
Emperor himself used as a pawn in power struggles between rival daimyo.
> I'm not sure about the rest.
Vietnam rebelled against Chinese rule in the 14th Century and remained
a single, sovereign state until the French occupation. I'm not sure
about Korea myself, but it was certainly a unified entity by the early
15th Century.
>>Nonsense. The Greeks rebelled because they had no democratic rights
>>whatsoever under the ottomans and saw the ottomans were week. Christians
>>were not permitted to serve in the army, they were not permitted to hold
>>any
>>kind of public office or carry out commerce and they were taxed more than
>>Muslims and systematically discriminated against and that's why the entire
>>Balkan peninsula rebelled simultaneously.
>> But surely egalitarian democracy is a 19th Century French invention so
>> isn't applicable... It certainly wasn't the form practiced in ancient
>> Greece or Athens, where most of the population had no democratic
>> rights.
>
>That is wrong. All of the
adult
>Athenian (male) population had the right to vote.
Hence the comment "an egalitarian democracy". No women (who would of
course have made up the usual 51% of the population), no slaves, and
IIRC a high voting age.
>Besides, if the Greeks had real self-government through the
> Patriarchate under the Ottomans as you earlier claimed, this situation
>I didn't say the Greeks had proper self-government. I said the Patriarchate
>had de-facto sovereignty over the Geeks. The Christian Patriarchates were
>the only way the Christian peoples under ottoman occupation could organise
>their own affairs such as educating themselves (and even this had to be done
>in secret underground schools) and bargaining for their rights.
Which simply emphasises the whole point I was making about a lack of
sovereignty under Ottoman rule ('de facto' sovereignty which has to be
exercised in secret is no sovereignty), and it seems that 'bargaining
for their rights' had little effect.
Philip Bowles
pbo...@aol.com
news:1120020399.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Agamemnon wrote:
>> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1120014601.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Agamemnon wrote:
>> >> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1120005161.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >>> At what point does an alternative history stop portraying real
>
>> Despite what you appear to belive, ancient Greek authors were no more
>> foolproof than later ones and their works do not hold some kind of
>> sacred status - no one is going to be overawed by the fact that one
>
>
>Obviously most of what you have read of them is from unreliable, inaccurate,
>and politically motivated quaternary and quintessential revisionist sources,
>rather than your own study of the original texts.
So, you're saying that reliable, accurate and politically unmotivated
sources, and the original texts themselves, do portray Herodotus as
being foolproof and having a sacred status?
>> work is attributed to Herodotus or some other well-known Greek writer
>> or give it a special status because it's several thousand years old;
>> without corroboration they will be treated with scepticism like
>
>
>Herodotus was corroborated by his contemporaries and those that followed
>him.
Those who followed him used his work as a basis. Few contemporary
accounts have corroborated Herodotus, and none so far as I know have
corroborated his accounts of things he never witnessed himself, such as
those that took place before his time. That is precisely the problem
with using him as a source - where he isn't the only source, there's no
problem.
>> anything else. Herodotus has been treated no differently from any other
>> secondary source, and it has been the absence of corroborating evidence
>> for many of his accounts since the earliest days of archaeology which
>> has led many historians to discredit him as reliable.
>
>
>No. These were not historians but political commentators and revisionists.
Circular reasoning: if someone disagrees with Herodotus (even without
knowing who they are) they are obviously political
commentators/revisionists and not historians. Therefore historians do
not disagree with Herodotus.
>> I'm getting tired of your ludicrous inventions and assumptions - if you
>> want to argue against opinions you've invented, feel free, but unless
>> you can point to anything I've said that indicates I've used Hollywood
>
>
>I've already shown it in your attempt to discredit Herodotus Egyptian
>history.
Where?
> Everything you came up with about slaver is from Hollywood
>historical fiction not from what Herodotus actually wrote.
Read my comments again. Since you posted the quote from Herodotus
everything I've argued has been based on that exact quote. Unless the
quote comes from a Hollywood script, you're talking nonsense.
> as source materials or any comment I've made about the enslavement of
> foreigners by Egyptians, retract this statement. Not knowing how to
> argue is one thing; inventing arguments quite another.
>> > account states that the Egyptians were used as slave labourers - which
>>>
>>> NO IT DOES NOT. It is your prejudice towards historical revisionists that
>>> makes you say that despite the fact that the above quote says NOTHING of
>>> the
>>> kind.
>>
>>
>> Do you know how slavery is defined? Hint: "...compelling them ... to
>> labour..." captures the essence of it. Enforced servitude - Khufu
>
>That definition has NOTHING to do with labour in ancient times.
Odd. Since it's exactly how Herodotus describes the labour in question,
the definition seems wholly pertinent. It seems that you've been
reduced to saying "well, yes, they were slaves in the sense that they
were forced to labour for their master, but they weren't *called*
slaves back then so it's different" - just a poor argument from
semantics.
> Its a
>definition only applicable to the American slave industry.
Ah, that's a relief. No need to feel any guilt about the British slave
trade then... They were just forced labourers. Much more politically
correct.
The word slave is
>not even ancient Greek.
So? The word 'robot' isn't English (it's Czech) but that doesn't mean
that English-speaking nations can't build them. In any case, remember
that Herodotus was describing what he believed to be the situation in
Egypt, not in Greece.
>> > is not borne out by findings from the labourers' village near Giza,
>> > which indicates that they were treated to unusually high-quality food,
>> > medical care and ceremonial burial for Egyptian commoners.
>>> Herodotus said people were made to work for the king instead of being
>>> taxed
>>> and that is what the evidence from Giza shows.
>
>
>> The evidence from Giza shows a small, well-cared for workforce, not a
>> legion of slaves.
>
>
>That's YOUR PREJUDICE on what you think slavery is and your prejudice is
>based on your guilt about the American slave trade. (And by you I mean you
>and the people/authors/Hollywood films that have formed your opinion.)
Interesting. Do you suppose Zahawi al-Hawass is motivated by "guilt
about the American slave trade" in finding the Giza remains
inconsistent with Herodotus, or is Egypt's premier archaeologist and
the world's leading expert on that period of Egyptian history just an
uneducated revisionist?
>> He recorded both - his records of events that occurred long before he
>> was writing (such as the construction of the pyramids) are speculative,
>
>
>
>Nope. Herodotus was around at the time of the Persian War
Which is therefore irrelevant to the comment about "his records of
events that occurred long before he was writing".
>and within living
>memory of Pissistratus.
Most of the New Testament Gospels were written within living memory of
Jesus, but that doesn't make them accurate historical accounts. It
makes them secondary sources based on hearsay.
>> while the whole point of Freud's methodology was that it wasn't mere
>> specularion but was based on observation and experiment (i.e. was a
>> science). He's almost certainly more accurate than Freud was, even so.
>
>
>Was a pseudo-science.
Defined how? A science by definition is any discipline that follows the
scientific method, and that's what Freud did. He was just lousy at
interpreting his results and used poor experimental designs.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>> > Your attempt to discredit him
>> >> is unfounded and indicative of irrational prejudice.
>> > Discredit him? By mentioning that he was probably a better historian
>> > than people have given him credit for, with examples? I'm merely
>> > pointing out that he was a primitive historian with only a rudimentary
>> > methodology for studying history.
>>> And thats all he needed because history is facts.
>>
>>
>> Do you remember what brought Herodotus into this discussion? Your claim
>> that history is not a record real life, but is simply an analysis of
>> the causes and consequences of historical events, citing Herodotus as
>> the reference. You have already given examples like the Persian War
>> indicating that Herodotus didn't actually follow this definition
>> anyway, and now you've downright contradicted the point you were trying
>
>Go and read Herodotus for yourself. Half the text is devoted to the causes
>and consequences of the war, and the rest is a disruption of the war itself
>to show everything in perspective and back up Herodotus arguments.
So Herodotus presented the history and then analysed it. Fair enough,
but that's not the definition of history you ascribed to him before and
it's not inconsistent with the 'history is real life/facts' that you
were disputing when you first brought it up.
>>> If should be perfectly obvious given that Herodrus had been proven to be
>>> correct and the revisionists clams about him have been proven wrong.
>>
>>
>> You're claiming that 'revisionists' were politically motivated to
>> discredit Herodotus in the first place because they were later proven
>> wrong for being revisionists? What's this, a revisionist with a TARDIS
>> who went back in time intent on ruining Herodotus' reputation after
>> being 'proved wrong'?
>
>
>They were proven wrong because the were wrong. What motivated them to be
>wrong was their own prejudice. The did not even quote what Herodotus
>actually said but what they thought he should have said, for example based
>on their guilt of the American slave trade for which they were acting as
>apologists
Why are you so hung up on the American slave trade? Rather than, say,
the British, French or Spanish slave trades?
Philip Bowles
pbo...@aol.com
>based on your guilt about the American slave trade. (And by you I mean you
>and the people/authors/Hollywood films that have formed your opinion.)
>Interesting. Do you suppose Zahawi al-Hawass is motivated by "guilt
>about the American slave trade" in finding the Giza remains
>inconsistent with Herodotus, or is Egypt's premier archaeologist and
>the world's leading expert on that period of Egyptian history just an
>uneducated revisionist?
As supporting evidence, some commentary from Hawass (sorry, his name's
Zahi Hawass) and the co-excavator of the labourers' settlement Mark
Lehner:
Herodotus: "No crime was too great for Cheops, they told me. When he
was short of money, he sent his daughter to a bawdy house with
instructions to charge a certain sum. She asked each of her customers
to give her a block of stone."
Hawass: "When Herodotus came here, he was a tourist, he doesn't know
anything about ancient Egypt."
Zahi Hawass, Undersecretary of State for the Giza monuments, says that
in this case, the wool was being pulled firmly over Herodotus' eyes.
Hawass: "He was met by the tour guides that you meet today, that they
will tell you anything to please you. They told him stories that never
happened."
NOVA: Herodotus, the Greek historian, wrote that 100,000 workers built
the pyramids and modern Egyptologists come up with a figure more like
20,000 workers. Can you explain that for us?
MARK LEHNER: Yeah, well, first of all Herodotus just claims he was told
that. He said, 100,000 men working in three shifts, which raises some
doubt
HAWASS: Herodotus, when he came here, met guides who tell stories and
things like that. But I really personally believe that based on the
size of the settlement and the whole work of an area that we found, I
believe that permanent and temporary workmen who worked at building the
pyramid were 36,000.
Specifically, about the issue of forced labour:
HAWASS: They are not really pushed to do it.
Though Lehner admits there's ambiguity about the situation - he asserts
that it was "definitely not slavery", but doesn't rule out a form of
conscription.
Philip Bowles
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120048161.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >That's YOUR PREJUDICE on what you think slavery is and your prejudice is
>>based on your guilt about the American slave trade. (And by you I mean you
>>and the people/authors/Hollywood films that have formed your opinion.)
>
>
>
>>Interesting. Do you suppose Zahawi al-Hawass is motivated by "guilt
>>about the American slave trade" in finding the Giza remains
>>inconsistent with Herodotus, or is Egypt's premier archaeologist and
>>the world's leading expert on that period of Egyptian history just an
>>uneducated revisionist?
>
> As supporting evidence, some commentary from Hawass (sorry, his name's
> Zahi Hawass) and the co-excavator of the labourers' settlement Mark
> Lehner:
>
> Herodotus: "No crime was too great for Cheops, they told me. When he
> was short of money, he sent his daughter to a bawdy house with
> instructions to charge a certain sum. She asked each of her customers
> to give her a block of stone."
> Hawass: "When Herodotus came here, he was a tourist, he doesn't know
> anything about ancient Egypt."
>
> Zahi Hawass, Undersecretary of State for the Giza monuments, says that
> in this case, the wool was being pulled firmly over Herodotus' eyes.
>
> Hawass: "He was met by the tour guides that you meet today, that they
> will tell you anything to please you. They told him stories that never
> happened."
And Hawass got in his TARDIS and travelled back to the time of Herodotus to
ask them this ?
He is talking out of his rectal orifice based on blind prejudice.
>
> NOVA: Herodotus, the Greek historian, wrote that 100,000 workers built
> the pyramids and modern Egyptologists come up with a figure more like
> 20,000 workers. Can you explain that for us?
>
> MARK LEHNER: Yeah, well, first of all Herodotus just claims he was told
> that. He said, 100,000 men working in three shifts, which raises some
> doubt
>
> HAWASS: Herodotus, when he came here, met guides who tell stories and
> things like that. But I really personally believe that based on the
> size of the settlement and the whole work of an area that we found, I
> believe that permanent and temporary workmen who worked at building the
> pyramid were 36,000.
And how does that disagree with Herodotus ?
>
> Specifically, about the issue of forced labour:
>
> HAWASS: They are not really pushed to do it.
Political revisionism. He is asserting his own point of view.
>
> Though Lehner admits there's ambiguity about the situation - he asserts
> that it was "definitely not slavery", but doesn't rule out a form of
> conscription.
And Herodotus never said it was slavery either.
>
> Philip Bowles
>
L. Ross Raszewski
>
>Just in case you've missed the past 2,000+ years, as you seem to have
>from your list of references, Herodotus is not generally regarded as
>being a particularly good historian - in large part because of his
>habit of 'interpreting' what he observed or deduced from history (such
>as his idea that the Egyptians used slave labour to build the pyramids,
>or various assertions about the habits of the Amazons). Granted, he was
I thimk you're being a bit harsh. Herodotus was a very *good*
historian. He just wasn't a tremendously *accurate* historian. (Which
is to say, he didn't so much go around making stuff up, as he went
around asking people what happened, which was just about the only tool
a historian had back then) I've always been given to understand that
he did a remarkably good job at the whole history thing, given what he
had to work with.
(I'm reminded of an anecdote that a medievalist once told me. He'd
just given a paper on something or other during the Hundred Years'
War. And afterward, all the WW2 historians came up to him and asked
how he could draw the kinds of conclusions he'd made based on such
weak evidence. And then all the ancient historians came up to him and
said they wished they had evidence half as strong as he had.)
L. Ross Raszewski
>
>
>Glyn wrote:
>
>> and unambiguously bisexual, without a tinge of camp. A drama aimed in
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Oh really. Captain Jack is as camp as a row of tents.
You seem to have a radically different definition of "camp" than the
rest of us.
I mean, yes, he's played for laughs some. He's an exageration of the
Swashbuckling Romantic Action Hero, somewhere between Captain Kirk,
James Bond, and Ace Rimmer. But he's not camp. He just treats people
of *either* gender the same way that his character type usually treats
women.
pbo...@aol.com
Hawass knows what he's talking about, and knows that Herodotus'
accounts were based on what he was told by the Egyptians of the time
about something in their distant past. Incidentally, a verbal account
from someone who happens to be of the same nationality as the people
who built the pyramids does not qualify as a primary source. Now if
there was evidence Herodotus had genuinely used primary sources as you
claim, Hawass would not be asserting that his knowledge of ancient
Egypt was based on hearsay.
> He is talking out of his rectal orifice based on blind prejudice.
You do realise that this is the same Zahi Hawass who discovered a
possible tunnel beneath the Sphinx leading to one of the pyramids and
excitedly announced that Herodotus had described just this? Hawass is
being an impartial historian - when Herodotus got things right, he's as
quick to give him credit as he is to disown what Herodotus says when he
got things wrong. How is that indicative of 'blind prejudice'? Or are
you making a blanket assumption based on the fact that you disagree
with one of Hawass' statements, without knowing anything more about his
background? Let me state this loudly and clearly once again: *THE
GREEKS WEREN'T ALWAYS RIGHT* any more than anyone else is/was.
Aristotle got things wrong. Herodotus got things wrong. Plato's belief
in an unchanging realm of perfect forms has little credence among
modern philosphers. Outside the realm of mathematics Pythagoras was
pretty much a crackpot with an irrational hatred of celery (or
something innocuous and edible he banned in his hare-brained religion;
I could probably dig up the details if I had time or interest). The
list goes on. The Hellenistic Greeks were an interesting and, for their
time, sophisticated culture over 2,000 years ago (one of several,
indeed) - they weren't the pinnacle of human achievement any more than
the Egyptians, Chinese or Indians of the same period were.
> >
> > NOVA: Herodotus, the Greek historian, wrote that 100,000 workers built
> > the pyramids and modern Egyptologists come up with a figure more like
> > 20,000 workers. Can you explain that for us?
> >
> > MARK LEHNER: Yeah, well, first of all Herodotus just claims he was told
> > that. He said, 100,000 men working in three shifts, which raises some
> > doubt
> >
> > HAWASS: Herodotus, when he came here, met guides who tell stories and
> > things like that. But I really personally believe that based on the
> > size of the settlement and the whole work of an area that we found, I
> > believe that permanent and temporary workmen who worked at building the
> > pyramid were 36,000.
>
> And how does that disagree with Herodotus ?
Check the figures again, and also Lehner's statement that "Herodotus
just claims he was told that" - i.e. he had no reliable source for the
figure. Three shifts of 100,000 men is a far cry from 20-36,000 - even
taking the interpretaion that he meant 100,000 men overall working in
three shifts, that still doesn't mesh with a figure of 20,000 or indeed
Hawass' 36,000, which is an overall figure rather than the number
working on one particular shift.
> >
> > Specifically, about the issue of forced labour:
> >
> > HAWASS: They are not really pushed to do it.
>
> Political revisionism. He is asserting his own point of view.
Which Herodotus wasn't? I'll refer you again to Hawass' background - he
is the leading expert on this period of Egyptian history, and if he
makes a comment like this he isn't pulling it out of thin air. In fact
in part of the interview I didn't quote he cites as evidence the way
Egyptians work today - a project starts, and people tend to join in
voluntarily from a desire to help. I have no doubt this is a highly
simplified account for the reporter he's talking to, and that there's
more evidence than this to support such a strong statement - he isn't
going to go into the details of his references in an interview. Even if
there isn't, anecdotal evidence from Egyptian practice is more
compelling evidence than a figure pulled out of thin air by an unnamed
contact of Herodotus'.
> >
> > Though Lehner admits there's ambiguity about the situation - he asserts
> > that it was "definitely not slavery", but doesn't rule out a form of
> > conscription.
>
> And Herodotus never said it was slavery either.
Have you got an exact quote about the pyramid builders to hand? You
quoted the workers who built the causeway, who Herodotus strongly
implies were treated as slaves but whose comment can admittedly be
interpreted as conscription (which is itself uncertain), but nothing
about the builders of the pyramids themselves.
Philip Bowles
pbo...@aol.com
>from your list of references, Herodotus is not generally regarded as
>being a particularly good historian - in large part because of his
>habit of 'interpreting' what he observed or deduced from history (such
>as his idea that the Egyptians used slave labour to build the pyramids,
>or various assertions about the habits of the Amazons). Granted, he was
>
>I thimk you're being a bit harsh. Herodotus was a very *good*
>historian.
Having read more about him and more of Agamemnon's comments, that's
probably true - it's clear that when Agamemnon first brought him up he
misrepresented Herodotus' approach to history, which from his later
accounts seems to have been as much methodical record-keeping, the
basis of history, than simple 'analysis of causes and consequences',
which is simply the interpretation of that history.
Philip Bowles
Glyn
> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> news:11200257...@lotis.uk.clara.net...
> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
> >> "Glyn" <glyn.ke...@ox.spam.compsoc.net> wrote in message
> >> news:11199859...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
> >> > Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> announced:
> >> >> Kids shows should show kids being nice to each other and their
> >> >> parents.
> >> >
> >> > Did you see that Simpson's episode where it was decided that "Itchy &
> >> > Scratchy" was far too violent, and it got toned down to showing the two
> >> > characters being nice to each other all the time? The kids quickly got
> >> > bored, turned off the telly and stepped blinking into the sunlight.
> >> >
> >> > If all kids' shows were to adopt this practice in real life, I expect
> >> > you'd get a similar result. Kids watching less TV in favour of going
> >> > outside more may be no bad thing, but it would have completely failed
> >> > as a morality play.
> >>
> >> Nope. It would have succeeded by getting kids to be nice to each other.
> >
> > Read my paragraphs. Both of them. It hasn't succeeded in getting the
> > kids to be nice to each other if they've got bored with the preaching
> > and are now ignoring it altogether.
>
> They have watched it, they've seen the characters getting on with each other
> and now they are going out and trying to be nice to each other themselves.
They're going out because they're bored of seeing people being nice to
each other. This does not equate to them going out in order to be nice
to each other.
> >> >> Watch the Vicky Pollard scotches on Little Brittan. They are self
> >> >> explanatorily.
> >> >
> >> > How is laughing at Vicky Pollard behaving like a stupid slapper any
> >> > different from laughing at Jackie Tyler behaving like a stupid slapper?
> >>
> >> Vicky Pollard is played for laughs. Jackie Tyler is not
> >
> > You still claim that that scene wasn't in any way amusing?
>
> It was embarrassing.
It's just different tastes, then. I find "The Office", "Mr Bean" and
"Fawlty Towers" embarrassing. Lots of people seem to find those funny
despite, or even because of, the cringing involved.