Re: Narmer of Egypt

[Suzanne]

About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."
Narmer is the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of
stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler
of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
"Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets, such as the one called
"Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." Many
archaeologists take into account that Enmerker has the same
basic consonants as Nimrod/Nimrud in the Bible which are
the sounds NMR. NiMRod; eNMRker. According to the Bible,
Nimrod lived after the flood of Noah after the population
had a great comeback. Nimrod, of course is the leader that
wanted to build the tower of Babyl.
>
Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert but was a lush
tropical place, according to scientists. The waters of the NIle
would surge to as much as 27 feet once a year, bringing
rich silt which the Egyptian villages learned to use as a resource for
crops. The source of it being the waters running off of the moutains
of Ethiopia, combined with the waters of the Blue Nile as well as the
White NIle.

I wonder if Narmer was Nimrod and if he left Mesopotamia after the
Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.


Suzanne

[Michael Siemon]

In article
<aa406342-53bc-499b...@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

Good grief Suzanne; this is nothing but cheap association, in total
ignorance of the actual Egyptian (or Mesopotamian) contexts. There
are hundreds (even thousands) of years of pre-unification Egyptian
context for Narmer. There are also thousands of years of context for
the development of civilization in Anatolia and Meospotamia. None of
your silly suggestions have the _slightest_ resemblance to what is,
in fact, KNOWN about these matters. There are some hints to suggest
influence from Mesopotamia in the era of Egyptian unification. Your
"Nimrod" suggestion is merely idiotic. (And the "Tower of Babel" is
most likely a very _late_ notion imported into Jewish scripture after
the Babylonian Captivity, some 2000 years after the formation of the
Egyptian unified pharaonic kingdom.)

[deadrat]

Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
> of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."
> Narmer is the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of
> stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler
> of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
> "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets, such as the one called

> "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." <snip/>

Obviously related to "America."

> Suzanne
>
>

[Ernest Major]

In message
<mlsiemon-13D107...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> writes

And the Nile Delta is not now (as implied) a desert. And scientists do
not think that the Nile Delta was a lush tropical place a few millenia
back (lush, maybe; tropical, no.)
--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

On 26/11/2011 04:04, Suzanne wrote:
> About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
> of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."
> Narmer is the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of
> stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler
> of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
> "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets,

How would you know how his name "sounded like"? Have you found a voice
recording from Mesopotamia in your attic?

> such as the one called
> "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." Many
> archaeologists

Who are these "many"? The only one with something looking like
credentials is the Rock musician and mysticist David Rohl, who was for
some time director of the ISIS institute, a private charity with links
to Velikovsky. While that already more or less automatically put them on
the borderline for seriousness, even they could not quite cope with the
"unorthodox" (utterly cranky)ideas of Rohl, who succeeded in running it
down pretty fast. He now has a band again, arguably for the best

take into account that Enmerker has the same
> basic consonants as Nimrod/Nimrud in the Bible which are
> the sounds NMR. NiMRod; eNMRker.

and don't forget NuMeRia, the goddess of childbirth in ancient Rome.
OBVIOUSLY, Nimrod and Enmerker were really woman dressed as man, but
this hidden knowledge was oppressed by the patriarchic societies they
lived in. Most of the figures of history were really woman, Kind David
e.g. was really a Davina. (note the similarity in spelling) Why, I
shoudl immediately put this massive new insight that will revolutionise
history as we know it on a website, so that the gullible can find it.

According to the Bible,
> Nimrod lived after the flood of Noah after the population
> had a great comeback. Nimrod, of course is the leader that
> wanted to build the tower of Babyl.
>>
> Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert

You don't say. The Nile delta is also not a desert now.

but was a lush
> tropical place, according to scientists.

Really? Any cite to scientists who claim the Nile delta was at some
point tropical? really like to see how they substantiate that.

[Nick Keighley]

On Nov 26, 4:04 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert

it isn't a desert now. Have you ever been to Egypt? Have you ever
opened a book on a subject you pontificate about? Have you ever spent
10s on the web on a subject...

> but was a lush
> tropical place, according to scientists.

how the hell could it be tropical?


<snip>

[TomS]

"On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:34:29 +0000, in article
<jaqis4$5lq$1...@news.albasani.net>, Burkhard stated..."

>
>On 26/11/2011 04:04, Suzanne wrote:
>> About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
>> of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."
>> Narmer is the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of
>> stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler
>> of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
>> "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets,

[...snip...]

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharoah#Crowns_and_headdresses>

The red crown of Lower Egypt – the Deshret crown – dates back to
pre-dynastic times. A red crown has been found on a pottery shard
from Naqada, and later king Narmer is shown wearing the red crown
on both the Narmer macehead and the Narmer palette.
The white crown of Upper Egypt – the Hedjet crown – is shown on the
Qustul incense burner which dates to the pre-dynastic period. Later
King Scorpion was depicted wearing the white crown, as was Narmer.
The combination of red and white crown into the double crown – or
Pschent crown – is first documented in the middle of the First
dynasty of Egypt. The earliest depiction may date to the reign of
Djet, and is otherwise surely attested during the reign of Den.


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[Randy C]

> snip...

> I wonder if Narmer was Nimrod and if he left Mesopotamia after the
> Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
> Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.

Suzanne is making a typical creationist claim. She offers speculation
and then effectively says, "Prove my speculation wrong..."

In fact the burden of providing real evidence is on the person making
the claim. There isn't enough evidence presented by her here to do
anything more than laugh. To think that she is trying to make her
argument based on the similarity in the pronunciation of a name from
an ancient language that is no longer spoken is speculation at its
weakest.

Coincidentally I actually read a relevant article in a magazine just
his morning. (National Geographic's 'Exploring History'.) According
to the artile, Egyptian records are somewhat contradictory regarding
the name of the first king of Egypt. Some say his name was 'Namer',
others say it was 'Menes'. Still others say that his name was 'Hor
Aha'. His name may have been all of those.

Some of the problems with such claims are chronological. According to
many YEC, using the Bible as their source, the Flood occurred about
2500 BCE. (Bishop Ussher put the year of the flood at 2349 - 2348
BCE.) But the first pyramids were built earlier than 3000 BCE. None
of them show any signs of water damage. Moreover they took massive
amounts of manpower to construct. So for the population of the Earth
to go from eight people to a sufficient size - just in Egypt - to
build the pyramids would take many centuries.

So Egypt provides yet more evidence that the Bible is untrustworthy.

[Harry K]

On Nov 25, 8:52 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

> > Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mayby he was Amerindian?

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Nov 26, 4:54 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

How dare you!? She has said it so it must be so!!!

Harry K

[Friar Broccoli]

On 2011-11-25 23:04, Suzanne wrote:
> About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
> of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."
> Narmer is the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of
> stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler
> of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
> "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets, such as the one called
> "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." Many
> archaeologists take into account that Enmerker has the same
> basic consonants as Nimrod/Nimrud in the Bible which are
> the sounds NMR. NiMRod; eNMRker. According to the Bible,
> Nimrod lived after the flood of Noah after the population
> had a great comeback. Nimrod, of course is the leader that
> wanted to build the tower of Babyl.

According to a well documented description in answersingenesis the flood
occurred 4400 years ago:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/date-of-noahs-flood
"The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC +/- 11 years."

So at 5000 years ago, your guy Narmer and all his descendents and
everyone he ruled over had been exterminated by God, thus he could not
possibly have been responsible for the Tower of Babyl, which was build
by Noah's descendants after the flood.

>>
> Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert but was a lush
> tropical place, according to scientists. The waters of the NIle
> would surge to as much as 27 feet once a year, bringing
> rich silt which the Egyptian villages learned to use as a resource for
> crops. The source of it being the waters running off of the moutains
> of Ethiopia, combined with the waters of the Blue Nile as well as the
> White NIle.
>
> I wonder if Narmer was Nimrod and if he left Mesopotamia after the
> Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
> Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.
>
>
> Suzanne
>

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Mike Painter]

NMR also proves that they knew about Nuclear Magnetic Resonance at the time.

This is classic Suzanne and probably shows how all cults are formed. A
charismatic person notes something that makes sense to him or her and
forms a new version of The One True Church.

Suzanne still holds the world's record for compressing less thought into
more words than anybody else.

[Darwin123]

On Nov 25, 11:04 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
> of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."

This is what they call a "straw man" theory.
Otherwise known as "paper tiger" archeology.

[walksalone]

Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:aa406342-53bc-499b-91a0-
d76b36...@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:

> About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
> of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."

& your citation for these papyrus people? Ancient Egypt is a hodgepodge in
archaeology may never get it totally sorted out. But then, that is not a
field of study I excel in. If I recall correctly, his tour of duty was
approximately -3100 Gregorian.

> Narmer is the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of
> stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler

It's called the crown of upper and lower Egypt.

> of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
> "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets, such as the one called
> "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." Many
> archaeologists take into account that Enmerker has the same
> basic consonants as Nimrod/Nimrud in the Bible which are

Would you care to name a few these archaeologists? Of course not. A short
extract from Dictionary of Deities and Devils in the Bible.

NIMROD is attested to have existed in the Hebrew Bible, and consequently
cannot be assumed to be a historical figure without additional supporting
evidence. The claims on his behalf are many, including but not limited to
being a famous hunter, the founder of measurements between cities as well
as the first political state in the acclaimed postdiluvian primeval times.
The root word mrd [to rebel or we shall rebel] has certainly been
understood by Jewish tradition in this sense.
By their special standards he certainly would be considered the paradigm of
hybris. The technology is artificial and the probability is that his name
is a variant of that only god. A practice quite common in ancient Middle
East. This is reflected in the Jewish language as well. In this case the
likelihood is Ninurta which in Summeriam would have been shown as dingerNin
urta or Lord of arable earth. This etymological derivation all by itself
could support an identification with either the Mesopotamian god or a King
such as Tukulti-Ninurta I , who reigned from -1243 through -1207 Gregorian.
Even so, the exact development from the Sumerian prototype to the Hebrew
Bible hero is not known.

> the sounds NMR. NiMRod; eNMRker. According to the Bible,

You may want to access archaeological sites that are not plan to verify the
Hebrew Bible is correct.

> Nimrod lived after the flood of Noah after the population

A flood noticed nowhere else in the world and only claimed as de facto in
real in the writings of various scribes of the revealed gods of the desert.

> had a great comeback. Nimrod, of course is the leader that
> wanted to build the tower of Babyl.

There was no Tower of Babel, however there were ziggurats. Temples.

> Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert but was a lush
> tropical place, according to scientists. The waters of the NIle

To the best of my knowledge, the Nile Delta has never been considered
tropical.

> would surge to as much as 27 feet once a year, bringing
> rich silt which the Egyptian villages learned to use as a resource for
> crops. The source of it being the waters running off of the moutains
> of Ethiopia, combined with the waters of the Blue Nile as well as the
> White NIle.

That's nice, you have learned something.

> I wonder if Narmer was Nimrod and if he left Mesopotamia after the

As a matter of fact, no. It may well be beyond your ability to research due
to limited access to the information, but that is put to rest in a book
called the Dictionary of Deities and Devils in the Bible

> Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
> Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.

http://www.unmuseum.org/babel.htm for sufficient detail to make the
reasonable individual conclude that no, they are not of the same era in
history.

Your new hero is from approximately -3100 and Gregorian, and is a ziggurat
known as the Tower of Babel is much more recent. From the site.

Babylon was one of a number of cities built by a succession of peoples that
lived on the plain starting around 5,500 years ago. There developed a
tradition in each city of building a temple in the shape of a stepped
pyramid. These temples, or ziggurates, most likely honored a particular
god. The people of Mesopotamia believed in many gods and often a city might
have several ziggurates. Over time Babylon became the most influential city
on the plain and its ziggurat, honoring the god Marduk, was built,
destroyed and rebuilt until it was the tallest tower.

Archaeologists examining the remains of the city of Babylon have found what
appears to be the foundation of the tower: a square of earthen embankments
some three-hundred feet on each side. The tower's most splendid incarnation
was probably under King Nebuchadnezzar II who lived from 605-562 BC. The
King rebuilt the tower to stand 295 feet high. According to an inscription
made by the king the tower was constructed of "baked brick enameled in
brilliant blue." The terraces of the tower may have also been planted with
flowers and trees.

Hardly a universal effort, and will ask for the individual groups of
humanity that had been developing for millennia have developed their own
speech and writing.

walksalone who is tempted to reproduce some of the literature supporting
the claim of the Hebrew Bible about Nimrod, but I suspect my fingertips
would be beating before it would be over. And of course, it will not
support Suzanne's position. Ignorance, the bottomless pit for humanity.

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some
thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I
want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural
traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it
is more than wishful thinking.
Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World

[John Stockwell]

More likely Nimrod is a different person from Narmer.
>
> Suzanne

[Suzanne]

On Nov 26, 3:07 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011-11-25 23:04, Suzanne wrote:
>
> > About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
> > of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."

> >Narmeris the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of

> > stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler
> > of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
> > "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets, such as the one called
> > "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." Many
> > archaeologists take into account that Enmerker has the same

> > basic consonants asNimrod/Nimrud in the Bible which are
> > the sounds NMR.NiMRod; eNMRker. According to the Bible,
> >Nimrodlived after the flood of Noah after the population
> > had a great comeback.Nimrod, of course is the leader that

> > wanted to build the tower of Babyl.
>
> According to a well documented description in answersingenesis the flood
> occurred 4400 years ago:
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/date-of-noahs-flood
> "The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC +/- 11 years."
>

> So at 5000 years ago, your guyNarmerand all his descendents and

> everyone he ruled over had been exterminated by God, thus he could not
> possibly have been responsible for the Tower of Babyl, which was build
> by Noah's descendants after the flood.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert but was a lush
> > tropical place, according to scientists. The waters of the NIle
> > would surge to as much as 27 feet once a year, bringing
> > rich silt which the Egyptian villages learned to use as a resource for
> > crops. The source of it being the waters running off of the moutains
> > of Ethiopia, combined with the waters of the Blue Nile as well as the
> > White NIle.
>

> > I wonder ifNarmerwasNimrodand if he left Mesopotamia after the

> > Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
> > Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.
>
> > Suzanne
>
> --
>   Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada

>    I consider ALL arguments in support of my views- Hide quoted text -
>
Thank you for your opinion about the subject. I had come to the
conclusion that they seem to be one in the same because of the
NMR sound. I had a good reason for that. When I began teaching
ESL to adults from all over the globe, I read a lot about their
languages and the sounds that are made in their languages, so
that I could show them how, inside of the mouth, the English is
spoken...where to place the tongue, etc. Somehow I learned that
when language words are transferred to another language, the
language they are being brought into, do not always have a sound
for all the sounds that a word will make in the original language.
So, in that case, the new language speakers will supply the
nearest sound they can come up with in their own langauge in
order to mimic the sound of the word in it's original language.
By the time we read it in English, it may have gone through lots
of changes in spelling. Then...
>
I had a student from Iraq who was a Muslim, and he assumed
that I was a Christian. He brought me his Bible, written in Urdu,
which he wanted me to see that he also read in his language.
It's the same Bible I have except fot the language. We found a
verse about the king of Mesopotamia when Esther was queen.
He read a verse about the king, which in Hebrew is Ahaseurus,
and he looked at what in his language was Xerxes and he
pronounced it as A-ha-sear-us. I was amazed and realized that
the Hebrew spelling was phonetic, and of course even in
Hebrew is not pronounced the way the word is spelled in our
English. So I realized the language plus the pronunciation in
the first language, plus the fact that a name might have been
brought through several languages would account for a difference
of spelling. Here's another thing, too....

With Narmer and Nimrod, we see one being in Iraq, and the other
as being in Egypt. But back in the days of thousands of years ago,
the lands may have been ruled by a person living, lets say in
Egypt who had expanded his lands by conquest. Enmerker, and
Narmer, and Nimrod and Enmerker and Menes seem to be all the
same person possibly, according to some who have written
about this. Someone can find this out by simply typing into the
browser of their pc's something like Nimrod and Narmer and
Enmerker and Menes. I think people should try to find information
as to why these might be the same person, and also why these
may not be the same person. And...we do not know the date of
the flood of Noah but we know that Nimrod lived after the flood
estimation. But there are many estimations.
>
Suzanne
>

[Friar Broccoli]

This is all very nice, but even if we accept that Narmer, Nimrod,
Enmerker and Menes are all actually the same name it really does not
help your case. Different people often have the same name, especially
when a historical figure is well thought of. How many people (including
lots of popes) are named John? Not even all the Johns in the Bible are

the same person.

> And...we do not know the date of
> the flood of Noah but we know that Nimrod lived after the flood
> estimation. But there are many estimations.

Do you know of any that can be defended from scriptural sources and vary
from 2300 BC by more than 200 years?

No matter how you cut it, your guy was born before the flood, and it
goes without saying that the Tower of Babel was attempted after the flood.

______

Just for the record, I summarized the AIG analysis as follows:

______________________________________________________________________________
Base date: 967 BC
Construction of Solomon's Temple (an unambiguous historical event)

1 Kings 6

01 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year
after the children of Israel were come out of the land of
Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in
the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to
build the house of Jehovah.

967 + 480
______________________________________________________________________________
Exodus --> Abraham gets great nation promise

Galatians 3

17 Now I say this, A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the
law, which took place four hundred and thirty years after,
does not annul, so as to make the promise of no effect.

967 + 480 + 430
______________________________________________________________________________
Age of Abraham when he received the Great Nation promise

Genesis 12

04 And Abram departed as Jehovah had said to him. And Lot went
with him. And Abram was seventy-five years old when he
departed out of Haran.

967 + 480 + 430 + 75
______________________________________________________________________________
Years from Shem at 100 to birth of Abraham

Genesis 12

10 These are the generations of Shem. Shem was a hundred years
old, and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood.

11 And Shem lived after he had begotten Arphaxad five hundred
years, and begot sons and daughters.

12 And Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Shelah.

13 And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Shelah four hundred
and three years, and begot sons and daughters.

14 And Shelah lived thirty years, and begot Eber.

15 And Shelah lived after he had begotten Eber four hundred and
three years, and begot sons and daughters.

16 And Eber lived thirty-four years, and begot Peleg.

17 And Eber lived after he had begotten Peleg four hundred and
thirty years, and begot sons and daughters.

18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begot Reu.

19 And Peleg lived after he had begotten Reu two hundred and
nine years, and begot sons and daughters.

20 And Reu lived thirty-two years, and begot Serug.

21 And Reu lived after he had begotten Serug two hundred and
seven years, and begot sons and daughters.

22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begot Nahor.

23 And Serug lived after he had begotten Nahor two hundred
years, and begot sons and daughters.

24 And Nahor lived twenty-nine years, and begot Terah.

25 And Nahor lived after he had begotten Terah a hundred and
nineteen years, and begot sons and daughters.

26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and
Haran.

967 + 480 + 430 + 75 + 350 + 2

______________________________________________________________________________

All of which gives a date of about 2300 BC for the flood.

______________________________________________________________________________

[Bill]

Suzanne, there's all sorts of interesting, well-established history
and archaeology about the ancient middle east. Why don't you read some
of it instead of letting yourself get repeatedly duped by internet
cranks?

I may be an atheist, but many Christians also find it helpful to learn
what serious historians and archaeologists have learned about that
era. I once again recommend to you the series of books "A Marginal
Jew" by John Meier; he's a Christian and he writes his book as though
he were trying to deduce what an imaginary panel of various
Christians, Jews and atheists could agree on about what historical
events actually occurred in the life of Jesus. He's already reached
three or four volumes and he seems to know what he is about when
talking about first century Judaism. You won't agree with everything
he says, but you might actually find it interesting. Far more
interesting than reading the nutty websites you seem to get your
information from.

[Mike Palmer]

I believe you're confusing Narmer with Archie's pal Jughead (who,
IIRC, married Etta Kett).

[Harry K]

> IIRC, married Etta Kett).- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Seeing as how she bases her "theories"...actually WAGS...on
coincidences in spelling is a dip into numerology very far down the
road?

Harry K

[Mike Painter]

Suzanne has read some well established history and has even given a
reference.(A big mistake on her part)
She defended her conclusions, based on this particular article, even
though the writer claims exactly the opposite.
Remember, this is the woman who told us that,
"It (light) includes microwaves, and even radio waves.
These are all really the same thing, a stream of
photons that move at certain frequencies,
producing waves of energy, identifiable by the
speed at which they are moving. Your ears
'hear' the light when it is at a certain level of
speed in it's wave formed lengths. Wehn it is
faster, you see the light. "

[Harry K]

> faster, you  see the light. "- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Please don't ever do that again! My brain is still burning from the
first time I tried to read that.

Harry K

[Suzanne]

> ___________________________________________________________________________­___

> Base date: 967 BC
> Construction of Solomon's Temple (an unambiguous historical event)
>
> 1 Kings 6
>
> 01 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year
>     after the children of Israel were come out of the land of
>     Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in
>     the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to
>     build the house of Jehovah.
>
> 967 + 480

> ___________________________________________________________________________­___

> Exodus --> Abraham gets great nation promise
>
> Galatians 3
>
> 17 Now I say this, A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the
>     law, which took place four hundred and thirty years after,
>     does not annul, so as to make the promise of no effect.
>
> 967 + 480 + 430

> ___________________________________________________________________________­___

> Age of Abraham when he received the Great Nation promise
>
> Genesis 12
>
> 04 And Abram departed as Jehovah had said to him. And Lot went
>     with him. And Abram was seventy-five years old when he
>     departed out of Haran.
>
> 967 + 480 + 430 + 75

> ___________________________________________________________________________­___

> ___________________________________________________________________________­___

>
> All of which gives a date of about 2300 BC for the flood.
>

> ___________________________________________________________________________­___

>
> --
>   Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
>    I consider ALL arguments in support of my views- Hide quoted text -
>

Robert, Thank you for your nice reply. Nimrod was born after the flood
of Noah, not
before. The Tower of Babel incident took place after the flood.
>
Your figuring of when the flood happened is very nice, but there is a
problem.
The Hebrews considered fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers and
great greats, etc., to be "the father of." For example, it states that
Shem was
the father of Eber (Eber = Heber, Hebrews) and yet Shem was not the
father,
but the great grandfather of Eber.. They use the word "father" as
"forefather"
at times. So the lists that you are going by could mean that.
>
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

What are you talking about? What are you referring to Internet
cranks about?

>
> I may be an atheist, but many Christians also find it helpful to learn
> what serious historians and archaeologists have learned about that
> era. I once again recommend to you the series of books "A Marginal
> Jew" by John Meier; he's a Christian and he writes his book as though
> he were trying to deduce what an imaginary panel of various
> Christians, Jews and atheists could agree on about what historical
> events actually occurred in the life of Jesus. He's already reached
> three or four volumes and he seems to know what he is about when
> talking about first century Judaism. You won't agree with everything
> he says, but you might actually find it interesting. Far more
> interesting than reading the nutty websites you seem to get your

> information from.- Hide quoted text -
>
Again, what are you talking about, concerning nutty websites?
What information are you saying comes from them? Where is
this coming from?
>
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

> IIRC, married Etta Kett).- Hide quoted text -
>

Cute. Now be serious.
>
Suzanne

[Friar Broccoli]

>> ___________________________________________________________________________茁__

>> Base date: 967 BC
>> Construction of Solomon's Temple (an unambiguous historical event)
>>
>> 1 Kings 6
>>
>> 01 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year
>> after the children of Israel were come out of the land of
>> Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in
>> the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to
>> build the house of Jehovah.
>>
>> 967 + 480

>> ___________________________________________________________________________茁__

>> Exodus --> Abraham gets great nation promise
>>
>> Galatians 3
>>
>> 17 Now I say this, A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the
>> law, which took place four hundred and thirty years after,
>> does not annul, so as to make the promise of no effect.
>>
>> 967 + 480 + 430

>> ___________________________________________________________________________茁__

>> Age of Abraham when he received the Great Nation promise
>>
>> Genesis 12
>>
>> 04 And Abram departed as Jehovah had said to him. And Lot went
>> with him. And Abram was seventy-five years old when he
>> departed out of Haran.
>>
>> 967 + 480 + 430 + 75

>> ___________________________________________________________________________茁__

>> ___________________________________________________________________________茁__

>>
>> All of which gives a date of about 2300 BC for the flood.
>>

>> ___________________________________________________________________________茁__

>>
> Robert, Thank you for your nice reply. Nimrod was born after the flood
> of Noah, not
> before. The Tower of Babel incident took place after the flood.
>>
> Your figuring of when the flood happened is very nice, but there is a
> problem.
> The Hebrews considered fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers and
> great greats, etc., to be "the father of." For example, it states that
> Shem was
> the father of Eber (Eber = Heber, Hebrews) and yet Shem was not the
> father,
> but the great grandfather of Eber.. They use the word "father" as
> "forefather"
> at times. So the lists that you are going by could mean that.
>>
> Suzanne

I checked (using Darby), and this interpretation is not at all
supportable from scripture:

Gen 10:21-25 makes the distinction between "father" and "begot"
unambiguously clear in this context. While Gen 11:10-26 (improperly
labelled Gen 12 by me above) uses only "begot".

Genesis 10

21 And to Shem -- to him also were [sons] born; he is the father of
all the sons of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder.

22 The sons of Shem: Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.

23 And the sons of Aram: Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.

24-- And Arphaxad begot Shelah; and Shelah begot Eber.

25 And to Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, for
in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.


I presume you need ambiguity to support your preexisting beliefs, but
there is none here.

[Harry K]

> Suzanne- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

YOu start a thread concerning a theory based solely on the same
letters being in different words and you want someone else to be
serious?

Harry K

[Harry K]

> Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Watch that handwaving so you don't accidently hit yourself.

Harry K

[Suzanne]

On Nov 25, 10:17 pm, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article
> <aa406342-53bc-499b-91a0-d76b369f7...@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>  Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
> > of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."

> > Narmer is the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of

> > stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler
> > of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
> > "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets, such as the one called
> > "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." Many
> > archaeologists take into account that Enmerker has the same

> > basic consonants as Nimrod/Nimrud in the Bible which are
> > the sounds NMR. NiMRod; eNMRker. According to the Bible,
> > Nimrod lived after the flood of Noah after the population
> > had a great comeback. Nimrod, of course is the leader that

> > wanted to build the tower of Babyl.
>

> > Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert but was a lush
> > tropical place, according to scientists. The waters of the NIle
> > would surge to as much as 27 feet once a year, bringing
> > rich silt which the Egyptian villages learned to use as a resource for
> > crops. The source of it being the waters running off of the moutains
> > of Ethiopia, combined with the waters of the Blue Nile as well as the
> > White NIle.
>

> > I wonder if Narmer was Nimrod and if he left Mesopotamia after the

> > Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
> > Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.
>
> > Suzanne
>

> Good grief Suzanne; this is nothing but cheap association, in total
> ignorance of the actual Egyptian (or Mesopotamian) contexts. There
> are hundreds (even thousands) of years of pre-unification Egyptian
> context for Narmer. There are also thousands of years of context for
> the development of civilization in Anatolia and Meospotamia. None of
> your silly suggestions have the _slightest_ resemblance to what is,
> in fact, KNOWN about these matters. There are some hints to suggest
> influence from Mesopotamia in the era of Egyptian unification. Your
> "Nimrod" suggestion is merely idiotic. (And the "Tower of Babel" is
> most likely a very _late_ notion imported into Jewish scripture after
> the Babylonian Captivity, some 2000 years after the formation of the

> Egyptian unified pharaonic kingdom.)- Hide quoted text -
>
The Tower of Babel incident happened after the flood of Noah, not
when you are suggesting. History bears it out because the first
pyramids were step pyramids, and those are still found in Iraq,
which then became Mesopotamia. Earlier it was called Arata,
which is what the Ararat Mountains came from, earlier written as
Ururat, which is also where the name Ur, Eridu, Erech/URuk, comes
from. Erech is what Iraq comes from, and depending upon which
language or dialect is used, the spellings of each will be different.
In America, we call a country "Spain," and that is not it's realy

name. The real name is Espania. We also used to spell
Romania as "Rumania, and Roumania was also found in print.
The step pyramids in Mesopotamia are the ziggURats, and
the step pyramid of Djoser is identical to those. Some clay
tablets were found in Iraq with cuniform, tellng about the
"new" language that looked like "nails," and they were written
in cuneiform, and were about cuneiform. The name of them
was "Enmerker and the Lord of Arata." Enmerker is Nimrod,
and the archaeologists agree. The Northern part of Iraq,

Iran has the Zagros mountains in it, and they move into the
Ararat Mountains that are in Eastern Turkey, with Armenia
being there also. Narmer is the Scorpian King of very early
Egypt. Egyptian Chronology has been changed about 3 times
in my lifetime. They swear that they have it right now, but
there are still some things that don't add up, and some facts
missing. When Hatshepsut ruled she died mysteriously and
she had done great things. Her statues were defaced and
her funerary was hidden under the sands of Egypt until

in recent years it was discovered and unearthed to reveal
one of the most beautiful of all the Egyptian buildings. Many
think she could have been the Egyptian adopted mother of
the baby Moses. In her funerary building there is a painting,
so I have read, that depicts her, hoding a baby which some
say could be the baby Moses.Egyptologists will say that
the Egyptian Chronologyy is correct, but they are referring
to the current one. As you must surely know, when something
new is found, sometimes people will have to revise what they
think the chronology is. You know the archaeologists do
their best to keep the information correct.
>
Suzanne

[Bill]

If you have to ask......

[Bill]

Elsewhere you asked what I meant by nutty websites. The ones where you
got this information would be good examples.

[Suzanne]

On Nov 26, 2:13 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <mlsiemon-13D107.20170425112...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
> Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> writes

> And the Nile Delta is not now (as implied) a desert. And scientists do
> not think that the Nile Delta was a lush tropical place a few millenia
> back (lush, maybe; tropical, no.)
> --
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
>
Apparently papyrus grows in tropical and sub-tropical climates, and we
know that papyrus used to flourish in the Nile Delta.

Yes, a lot of Delta still green but used to be much more so and
larger, and Sahara has grown immensely. Look at 2nd map in this
website for the perspective relative to rest of area. You see a photo
of Delta up close and looks like it's all verdant, but it has grown
smaller, and you know the desert is right next to it because the
Sphinx is in Cairo and you can see the sands at the Valley of the
Kings. You can also see the palm trees in some photos at this website.
Ernest, my parents lived in Libya next to Egypt. so they told me many
things about the area. The tropical and subtropical parts of Egypt go
right straight next to the Sahara.
http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/students/curriculum/m16/activity1.php

Egypt runs from sub-tropical to tropical. The north part of the Sinai
has
diminished in it's plant growth compared to some years ago. The
moringa
shrub is now further south, but used to grow near the top of the
Sinai.

-------------------------------
QUOTE: CYPERUS PAPYRUS; Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyperus_papyrus

"Cyperus papyrus is now used mainly for decoration, as it is nearly
extinct in its native habitat in the Nile Delta, where in ancient
times it was widely cultivated. Theophrastus' "History of
Plants" (Book iv. 10) states that it grew in Syria; and, according to
Pliny's Natural History, it was also a native plant of the Niger River
and the Euphrates.

Aside from papyrus, several other members of the genus Cyperus may
actually have been involved in the multiple uses Egyptians found for
the plant. Its flowering heads were linked to make garlands for the
gods in gratitude. The pith of young shoots was eaten both cooked and
raw. Its woody root made bowls and other utensils and was burned for
fuel. From the stems were made reed boats (seen in bas-reliefs of the
Fourth Dynasty showing men cutting papyrus to build a boat; similar
boats are still made in the southern Sudan), sails, mats, cloth,
cordage, and sandals. Theophrastus states that King Antigonus made the
rigging of his fleet of papyrus, an old practice illustrated by the
ship's cable, wherewith the doors were fastened when Odysseus slew the
suitors in his hall (Odyssey xxi. 390).

The "rush" or "reed" basket in which the Biblical figure Moses was
abandoned may have been made from papyrus.

The adventurer Thor Heyerdahl built two boats from papyrus, Ra and Ra
II, in an attempt to demonstrate that ancient African or Mediterranean
people could have reached America. He succeeded in sailing Ra II from
Morocco to Barbados.

EcologyPapyrus ranges from subtropical to tropical desert to wet
forests, tolerating annual temperatures of 20 °C (68 °F) to 30 °C (86
°F) and a pH of 6.0 to 8.5. Papyrus flowers in late summer, and
prefers full sun to partly shady conditions. Like most tropical
plants, it is sensitive to frost. In the United States it has become
invasive in Florida and has escaped from cultivation in Louisiana,
California and Hawaii."
END OF QUOTE
-----------------------------------
So, apparently this shows that at one time the Delta of the NIle was
tropical and/or semi-tropical/sub-tropical

Your criticism was rude, don't you think? There is an old saying that
if you wish to critique, keep your words sweet, 'cause you never know
but what you might have to eat them. I don't mind if you disagree,
that's
fine. I think you could have said what you did a lot more scholarly,
and
nicer, and above all you should have been right, but I don't see that
you were.

j&%&y
%(*_*)%
>
>
Regards,
Suzanne
>

[Mark Isaak]

Meaning "Island of hyraxes", despite the fact that Spain is not an
island, and the explorers who named it were probably looking at rabbits,
not hyraxes. Which gives a good indication of how useful it is to look
at names.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Michael Siemon]

In article <jc0ua9$3n0$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Yep; "cheap association" as I said. Maybe, to use Suzanne's
"methodology", it is the island of cocker spaniels, or cockel
spaniers... :-). Now _there's_ a "Spaniard in the Works" (to quote
somebody or other....)

[Suzanne]

On Nov 26, 5:34 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> On 26/11/2011 04:04, Suzanne wrote:
>
> > About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
> > of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."
> > Narmer is the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of
> > stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler
> > of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
> > "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets,
>

> How would you know how  his name "sounded like"? Have you found a voice
> recording from Mesopotamia in your attic?
>
Very clever. His name sounded like.

>
> > such as the one called
> > "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." Many
> > archaeologists
>

> Who are these "many"? The only one with something looking like
> credentials is the Rock musician and mysticist  David Rohl, who was for
> some time director of the ISIS institute, a private charity with links
> to Velikovsky. While that already more or less automatically put them on
> the borderline for seriousness, even they could not quite cope with the
> "unorthodox" (utterly cranky)ideas of Rohl, who succeeded in running it
> down pretty fast. He now has a band again, arguably for the best
>
Funny that you should mention that. Do you know that I have been
said to sound like Velikovsky, but when someone first said that, I
had never heard of him. That's coincidental. I've done a lot of
studying
when I was teaching ESL and accent reduction. I learned how words
got into other languages, and how many of the consonants were
interchangeable when you are trying to figure out the origin of
something. The reason for that is that when transferring a word
from one language to another, they do their best to transfer it
phonetically. In so doing, all languages do not have the same
alphabet or sounds in their alphabet. So, they do their best to find
the nearest equivalent in their own language. One of the reasons
for the differences in sounds is that someone may not strike the
tongue inside the mouth in the same way on a similar sounding
consonant, so they can't quite "hear" how the person is saying a
word in their own language. That is, they don't know how to
emulate the sound that they are hearing. I can give you an
example. In English, when we say an "R," the tongue does not
toujch the roof of the mouth, but most of the tongue is stiffened
in an upwards slant, while the tip of the tongue keeps on
traveling upwards to complete the sound of the R. In a way if
you slowed it down, you would hear "are-er" - unless you are
from West Texas, Alabama, parts of Georgia and parts of
New England, which would pronounce an "R" as an "Ah."
Some consonants that are interchangeable are
g, ch/k, t, p, sh/ch, b/p/v, v/w/f, d/th, m/n, etc.
A "B" in Mexico is soft sounding like a th in those only said
where the lips form a "B" but wth more air coming through
the lips. The Mexican "D" has the tongue striking the back
of the two front teeth, rather than striking at the front of
the roof of the mouth behind the front teeth. So their
"D" sounds softer, or may have the part of the tongue on
the top, but not the tip form the "D" sound. This may sound
boring to you, and I don't mean for it to be.
>
Another thing is that in certain places, when a consonant
is spoken at the beginning of a word, or at the end of a
word, there might be a slight "uh" sound spoken. For
example in English we woud say, if you slowed it down
"Emm-muh" when pronouncing an the "M" on the end of
"Mom." Some in English would say "Emmm" and close
down their lips until after the word is spoken, while
others would say "Mom-muh" with the "muh" barely
audible. Who ever brought the country of Spain's name
into the English language must have discounted the
sound at the beginning of the name of the coutnry,
because it really is "Espania" (with a tilde instead of
the added "i" that I just made). I had purchased some
textbooks about this sort of thing when I was teaching
the accent reduction class, which I had purchased at
the bookstore of the college I was teaching at, and
learned much from them.

>
> take into account that Enmerker has the same
>
> > basic consonants as Nimrod/Nimrud in the Bible which are
> > the sounds NMR. NiMRod; eNMRker.
>

> and don't forget NuMeRia, the goddess of childbirth in ancient Rome.
> OBVIOUSLY, Nimrod and Enmerker were really woman dressed as man, but
> this hidden knowledge was oppressed by the patriarchic societies they
> lived in. Most of the figures of history were really woman, Kind David
> e.g. was really a Davina. (note the similarity in  spelling)  Why, I
> shoudl immediately put this massive new insight that will revolutionise
> history as we know it on a website, so that the gullible can find it.
>
You are making fun of me, and you are also wrong.
>
And by the way, David Rohl is a great archaeologist. He did a
masterful job of figuring out what the Bible says is the location
of the Garden of Eden. You may not know who has opposed
him or why. He challenged that the Egyptian Chronology may
be off and I suppose there are some folks who had worked
hard on that who didn't want to accept his suggestion. When
he approached the Garden of Eden thing, before he ever
came out with it I had a student from Baghdad, who had told
me of the location that he went to up in the north of Iran,
near to the top of Iraq and also near Armenia, up at the
head of the two rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates. He noticed
something others never saw that I saw when studing the
passage and may others have seen too. It says in the
Bible that the heads of the rivers started with a single
river that went by the Garden of Eden to water it, and from
there, the Bible says, it broke into 4 heads. Two of them
are the ones I mentioned. A third river had an ancient name
which is named in the Bible but the Pison threw people. Then
he found out the Hebrew didn't have an "O" in it because
they didn't spell out vowels then and they were not in their
alphabet. He realized then that the O had been substituted
with a "p" sound. And he found a river nearby to the location
which was the Oison. Now, others who had looked for the
Garden location did not seem to get the direction of the
flow of the rivers. They began up in the moutains and that
is the head, and the mouth of the rivers is at the mouth of
the Persian Gulf. I guess they thought of the mouth of a
river being located in a head, which is where a mouth
usually is. But they took that error a long way because
many look to the mouth of the Persian Gulf as the
Garden being under the water and under the seafloor
because of the great natural aquifer that is located in
that region. As soon as I saw in a documentary on TV
about David Rohl's having notied that the origin of the
rivers would have been in the north of the countries,
I knew he was onto something. So I like his work very
much. He went by llegends, traditions in those regions,
and did a very masterful job of going there himself and
looking for this.

>
>   According to the Bible,
>
> > Nimrod lived after the flood of Noah after the population
> > had a great comeback. Nimrod, of course is the leader that
> > wanted to build the tower of Babyl.
>
> > Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert
>

> You don't say. The Nile delta is also not a desert now.
>
The Nile Delta is right up against the very Sahara, which
has grown tremendously.

>
>   but was a lush
>
> > tropical place, according to scientists.
>

> Really? Any cite to scientists who claim the Nile delta was at some
> point tropical? really like to see how they substantiate that.
>
Yes, really. You can see a website reference in another post
in this thread.

[Suzanne]

On Nov 26, 6:54 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Nov 26, 4:04 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert
>

> it isn't a desert now. Have you ever been to Egypt? Have you ever
> opened a book on a subject you pontificate about? Have you ever spent
> 10s on the web on a subject...
>
I have not, but both of my parents lived in Libya and have been
there. They lived in Tripoli before Khadafe took it over. We
had an air force base there.

>
> > but was a lush
> > tropical place, according to scientists.
>

> how the hell could it be tropical?
>
It has a more of a Mediterranean temperature now, but
before the Sahara engulfed the top of Africa as far as
it goes now, and before the building of the Suez Canal,
and before so many people came to live in the region,
the terrain was changed by progress. The African wild
animals went inland. The camel was not even there
before 2,000 years ago, and where they came from
is somewhat of a mystery. They did have hippos in
the vicinity and now they have gone futher South.
I have never seen it but I think the marshes of the
Wadi al Arish have diminished or disappeared. That
is believed to be the biblical "Brook of Egypt," by many
scholars, rather than that being a descriptive namd of
the Nile. The building of the Suez seems to have played
a big role in that, it is believed. Not that someone should
not have built it, they apparently needed to do that. The
papyrus that grew there iive in tropical or semi-tropical
regions. To be honest with you though, they have
found papyrus in Syria, and I don't know why it would
be that far north, except they do make exceptions that
some places with very marshy lands may hold warmth
from the tangle of roots, making it possible, but not
likely in most places that are not tropical.
>
Also there is something peculiar about islands in that
when they are surrounded by water on all sides, they
can be tropical where the mainlands near them are
not. On Merritt Island in Florida, on the south end of
it, which ends at Melbourne, Florida, and which I have
been to many times, you can have mangoes, orchids,
jacaranda trees, growing on the island and not losing
the tropical trees and shrubs while Melbourne, right
across the river can have ice on the ground in some
winters. I had counsins living on the island and
relatives living in Melbourne.
>
Someone that might know, please explain to me how
water around an island and near to a mainland can
be wrmer than the mainland. I have never looked that
up. Anyone know?
>
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

On Nov 26, 1:07 pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > snip...

> > I wonder if Narmer was Nimrod and if he left Mesopotamia after the
> > Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
> > Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.
>

> Suzanne is making a typical creationist claim.  She offers speculation
> and then effectively says, "Prove my speculation wrong..."
>
Randy, I was not going by Creationist claims, I learned this
independently from claims of others, and usually I do my own personal
research and am rather skeptical,
in that I have to find things out myself and I don't just
automatically believe someone's claims on either side of the issues.
>
>
> In fact the burden of providing real evidence is on the person making
> the claim.  There isn't enough evidence presented by her here to do
> anything more than laugh.  To think that she is trying to make her
> argument based on the similarity in the pronunciation of a name from
> an ancient language that is no longer spoken is speculation at its
> weakest.
>
Now, wait a minute, Randy. I did not present any of this as fact when
I began this. I offered it up as a subject people could talk about.
You need to stop
with the attacks that are against what I first had said
and go back and read it. And I know what I am talking
about with the search for word origins, the pronunciations, that the
interchageable consonants
and words. That's just another facet of something that
someone will read in order to ascertain all the facts
when trying to come to a reasonable conclusion
about antiquities. You go by pottery, things that are
written, traditions in locations that have been passed
down for hundreds or even thousands of years,
archaeology, which has to be updated, sometimes
erased and refigured.
>
> Coincidentally I actually read a relevant article in a magazine just
> his morning.  (National Geographic's 'Exploring History'.)  According
> to the artile, Egyptian records are somewhat contradictory regarding
> the name of the first king of Egypt.  Some say his name was 'Namer',
> others say it was 'Menes'.  Still others say that his name was 'Hor
> Aha'.  His name may have been all of those.
>
I read that article, too, Randy. The article contained
the pros and the cons of the issues and the known
facts. Some have reason to believe that Narmer
and the Scorpion King are one in the same, too.
>
> Some of the problems with such claims are chronological.  According to
> many YEC, using the Bible as their source, the Flood occurred about
> 2500 BCE.  (Bishop Ussher put the year of the flood at 2349 - 2348
> BCE.)  But the first pyramids were built earlier than 3000 BCE.
>
And what you are saying here is what confuses
people. Do you not see that Usher's 2500 BC is
very close to 3000 BC. You are making a judgment
that denies one of these, when there are only 50
years difference. Usher's is based on an exact
totalling of the biblical genealogies, and he is right
about many things, but with this subject, a leaway
is held by most people who study the subject
because the Hebrews also allow that a grandfather
or great or great great grandfather is also called
"the father of," meaning forefather, ancestor,
when they are not the birth father. Abraham is
called a father of many sons. Many people hundreds
and thousands of years later are still called "sons of
Abraham." So if you base your idea above on only 50 years difference,
you will show that you don't know
what all goes into learning something from antiquities,
such as the flood of Noah. Genealogies can have
gaps, protractions, and so you have to count in
a leaway.
>
> None
> of them show any signs of water
> damage.
>
Where have you been? There is a lot of speculation about that. Haven't
you heard the speculations about
the wear on the Sphinx?
>
> Moreover they took massive
> amounts of manpower to construct.  So for the
> population of the Earth
> to go from eight people to a sufficient size - just in
> Egypt - to
> build the pyramids would take many centuries.
>
> So Egypt provides yet more evidence that the Bible > is untrustworthy.
>
Randy, millions of babies are aborted every year. It they lived, and
if families had 12 to 25 children as some in America have done, it
would not take long.
And people lived longer then, so many would already
be at maturity and could have babies. After such a
flood, diseases would have to start all over again
accumulating, so they probably would not have so
much threat of dying young. You can't judge things
by what standards we would have now. Life would
have been different for those eight people that to
compare them with now. Consider this. When you
see a biblical genealogy, usually just one of the
children is mentioned of a man. But he ha many
children, and while they were large families, while
he and his wife were having those children, by the
time they got to all of each father and mother's
offsprings, some of those children would already
be grandparents...
>
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

On Nov 26, 3:07 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2011-11-25 23:04, Suzanne wrote:
>
> > About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
> > of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."
> > Narmer is the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of
> > stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler
> > of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like

> > "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets, such as the one called

> > "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." Many

> > archaeologists take into account that Enmerker has the same

> > basic consonants as Nimrod/Nimrud in the Bible which are

> > the sounds NMR. NiMRod; eNMRker. According to the Bible,

> > Nimrod lived after the flood of Noah after the population
> > had a great comeback. Nimrod, of course is the leader that
> > wanted to build the tower of Babyl.
>

> According to a well documented description in answersingenesis the flood
> occurred 4400 years ago:
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/date-of-noahs-flood
> "The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC +/- 11 years."
>

> So at 5000 years ago, your guy Narmer and all his descendents and

> everyone he ruled over had been exterminated by God, thus he could not
> possibly have been responsible for the Tower of Babyl, which was build
> by Noah's descendants after the flood.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert but was a lush
> > tropical place, according to scientists. The waters of the NIle

> > would surge to as much as 27 feet once a year, bringing
> > rich silt which the Egyptian villages learned to use as a resource for
> > crops. The source of it being the waters running off of the moutains
> > of Ethiopia, combined with the waters of the Blue Nile as well as the
> > White NIle.
>

> > I wonder if Narmer was Nimrod and if he left Mesopotamia after the
> > Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
> > Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.
>
> > Suzanne
>

> --
>   Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
>

Only trouble is that there are quite a few claims where
those making them say they are right about the date of the flood.
Thanks for the website.
>
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

On Nov 26, 6:25 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 11:04 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:> About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know

> > of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."
>

>     This is what they call a "straw man" theory.
>     Otherwise known as "paper tiger" archeology.
>
I wondered when someone would create a strawman
claim. He was in the Wizard of Oz!
>
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

That's possible. A whole lot of people think they are the same.
>
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

On Nov 26, 9:38 pm, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:aa406342-53bc-499b-91a0-
> d76b369f7...@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:

>
> > About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
> > of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."
>

> & your citation for these papyrus people? Ancient Egypt is a hodgepodge in
> archaeology may never get it totally sorted out. But then, that is not a
> field of study I excel in. If I recall correctly, his tour of duty was
> approximately -3100 Gregorian.

>
> > Narmer is the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of
> > stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler
>

> It's called the crown of upper and lower Egypt.

>
> > of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
> > "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets, such as the one called
> > "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." Many
> > archaeologists take into account that Enmerker has the same
> > basic consonants as Nimrod/Nimrud in the Bible which are
>

> Would you care to name a few these archaeologists? Of course not. A short
> extract from Dictionary of Deities and Devils in the Bible.
>
> NIMROD  is attested to have existed in the Hebrew Bible, and consequently
> cannot be assumed to be a historical figure without additional supporting
> evidence. The claims on his behalf are many, including but not limited to
> being a famous hunter, the founder of measurements between cities as well
> as the first political state in the acclaimed postdiluvian primeval times.
> The root word mrd [to rebel or we shall rebel] has certainly been
> understood by Jewish tradition in this sense.
> By their special standards he certainly would be considered the paradigm of
> hybris. The technology is artificial and the probability is that his name
> is a variant of that only god. A practice quite common in ancient Middle
> East. This is reflected in the Jewish language as well. In this case the
> likelihood is Ninurta which in Summeriam would have been shown as dingerNin
> urta or Lord of arable earth. This etymological derivation all by itself
> could support an identification with either the Mesopotamian god or a King
> such as Tukulti-Ninurta I , who reigned from -1243 through -1207 Gregorian.
> Even so, the exact development from the Sumerian prototype to the Hebrew
> Bible hero is not known.

>
> > the sounds NMR. NiMRod; eNMRker. According to the Bible,
>

> You may want to access archaeological sites that are not plan to verify the
> Hebrew Bible is correct.

>
> > Nimrod lived after the flood of Noah after the population
>

> A flood noticed nowhere else in the world and only claimed as de facto in
> real in the writings of various scribes of the revealed gods of the desert.

>
> > had a great comeback. Nimrod, of course is the leader that
> > wanted to build the tower of Babyl.
>

> There was no Tower of Babel, however there were ziggurats. Temples.

>
> > Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert but was a lush
> > tropical place, according to scientists. The waters of the NIle
>

> To the best of my knowledge, the Nile Delta has never been considered
> tropical.

>
> > would surge to as much as 27 feet once a year, bringing
> > rich silt which the Egyptian villages learned to use as a resource for
> > crops. The source of it being the waters running off of the moutains
> > of Ethiopia, combined with the waters of the Blue Nile as well as the
> > White NIle.
>

> That's nice, you have learned something.

>
> > I wonder if Narmer was Nimrod and if he left Mesopotamia after the
>

> As a matter of fact, no. It may well be beyond your ability to research due
> to limited access to the information, but that is put to rest in a book
> called the Dictionary of Deities and Devils in the Bible

>
> > Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
> > Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.
>

> http://www.unmuseum.org/babel.htmfor sufficient detail to make the
> reasonable individual conclude that no, they are not of the same era in
> history.
>
> Your new hero is from approximately -3100 and Gregorian, and is a ziggurat
> known as the Tower of Babel is much more recent. From the site.
>
> Babylon was one of a number of cities built by a succession of peoples that
> lived on the plain starting around 5,500 years ago. There developed a
> tradition in each city of building a temple in the shape of a stepped
> pyramid. These temples, or ziggurates, most likely honored a particular
> god. The people of Mesopotamia believed in many gods and often a city might
> have several ziggurates. Over time Babylon became the most influential city
> on the plain and its ziggurat, honoring the god Marduk, was built,
> destroyed and rebuilt until it was the tallest tower.
>
> Archaeologists examining the remains of the city of Babylon have found what
> appears to be the foundation of the tower: a square of earthen embankments
> some three-hundred feet on each side. The tower's most splendid incarnation
> was probably under King Nebuchadnezzar II who lived from 605-562 BC. The
> King rebuilt the tower to stand 295 feet high. According to an inscription
> made by the king the tower was constructed of "baked brick enameled in
> brilliant blue." The terraces of the tower may have also been planted with
> flowers and trees.
>
> Hardly a universal effort, and will ask for the individual groups of
> humanity that had been developing for millennia have developed their own
> speech and writing.
>
> walksalone who is tempted to reproduce some of the literature supporting
> the claim of the Hebrew Bible about Nimrod, but I suspect my fingertips
> would be beating before it would be over. And of course, it will not
> support Suzanne's position. Ignorance, the bottomless pit for humanity.
>
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some
> thinking, feeling, remembering part  of me will continue. But as much as I
> want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide  cultural
> traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it
> is more than wishful thinking.
> Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World
>
You are so negative that you are likeable.
>
You don't know if Jesus is real and you don't know if he died for your
sins, but you don't want to be left out if it is true. It's true. .
>
>
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

On Nov 26, 5:52 pm, Mike Painter <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 11/25/2011 8:04 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>
>
>
> > About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
> > of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."

> > Narmer is the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of
> > stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler

> > of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
> > "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets, such as the one called
> > "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." Many
> > archaeologists take into account that Enmerker has the same
> > basic consonants as Nimrod/Nimrud in the Bible which are

> > the sounds NMR. NiMRod; eNMRker. According to the Bible,

> > Nimrod lived after the flood of Noah after the population

> > had a great comeback. Nimrod, of course is the leader that
> > wanted to build the tower of Babyl.

> > Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert but was a lush
> > tropical place, according to scientists. The waters of the NIle

> > would surge to as much as 27 feet once a year, bringing
> > rich silt which the Egyptian villages learned to use as a resource for
> > crops. The source of it being the waters running off of the moutains
> > of Ethiopia, combined with the waters of the Blue Nile as well as the
> > White NIle.
>

> > I wonder if Narmer was Nimrod and if he left Mesopotamia after the

> > Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
> > Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.
>

> > Suzanne
>
> NMR also proves that they knew about Nuclear Magnetic Resonance at the time.
>
> This is classic Suzanne and probably shows how all cults are formed. A
> charismatic person notes something that makes sense to him or her and
> forms a new version of The One True Church.
>
Now, Mike, this is not the truth.
>
> Suzanne still holds the world's record for compressing less thought into
> more words than anybody else.
>
LOL, I knew you would not disappoint us with your
contribution. You may be right.
>>
Suzanne

[Friar Broccoli]

On 2011-12-10 21:16, Suzanne wrote:
> On Nov 26, 3:07 pm, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-11-25 23:04, Suzanne wrote:
>>
>>> About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
>>> of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."
>>> Narmer is the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of
>>> stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler
>>> of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
>>> "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets, such as the one called
>>> "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." Many
>>> archaeologists take into account that Enmerker has the same
>>> basic consonants as Nimrod/Nimrud in the Bible which are
>>> the sounds NMR. NiMRod; eNMRker. According to the Bible,
>>> Nimrod lived after the flood of Noah after the population
>>> had a great comeback. Nimrod, of course is the leader that
>>> wanted to build the tower of Babyl.
>>
>> According to a well documented description in answersingenesis the flood
>> occurred 4400 years ago:
>>
>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/date-of-noahs-flood
>> "The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC +/- 11 years."
>>
>> So at 5000 years ago, your guy Narmer and all his descendents and
>> everyone he ruled over had been exterminated by God, thus he could not
>> possibly have been responsible for the Tower of Babyl, which was build
>> by Noah's descendants after the flood.

.

> Only trouble is that there are quite a few claims where
> those making them say they are right about the date of the flood.
> Thanks for the website.

I was under the impression that you considered the bible to be the
inerrant word of God. Was I wrong about that?

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada

[Harry K]

> Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And a whole lot of people think there was a Ye Floode. They too are
wrong.

Harry K

[Harry K]

I score that a 10 on the handwaving event.

Harry K

[Suzanne]

On Nov 28, 7:09 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2011-11-28 16:02, Suzanne wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 3:07 pm, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com>  wrote:

> >> On 2011-11-25 23:04, Suzanne wrote:
>
> >>> About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
> >>> of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."

> >>> Narmeris the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of

> >>> stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler
> >>> of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
> >>> "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets, such as the one called
> >>> "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." Many
> >>> archaeologists take into account that Enmerker has the same

> >>> basic consonants asNimrod/Nimrud in the Bible which are
> >>> the sounds NMR.NiMRod; eNMRker. According to the Bible,
> >>> Nimrodlived after the flood of Noah after the population
> >>> had a great comeback.Nimrod, of course is the leader that

> >>> wanted to build the tower of Babyl.
>

> >> According to a well documented description in answersingenesis the flood
> >> occurred 4400 years ago:
>
> >>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/date-of-noahs-flood
> >> "The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC +/- 11 years."
>

> >> So at 5000 years ago, your guyNarmerand all his descendents and

> >> everyone he ruled over had been exterminated by God, thus he could not
> >> possibly have been responsible for the Tower of Babyl, which was build
> >> by Noah's descendants after the flood.
>

> >>> Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert but was a lush
> >>> tropical place, according to scientists. The waters of the NIle
> >>> would surge to as much as 27 feet once a year, bringing
> >>> rich silt which the Egyptian villages learned to use as a resource for
> >>> crops. The source of it being the waters running off of the moutains
> >>> of Ethiopia, combined with the waters of the Blue Nile as well as the
> >>> White NIle.
>

> >>> I wonder ifNarmerwasNimrodand if he left Mesopotamia after the

> >>> Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
> >>> Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.
>
> >>> Suzanne
>

> >> --
> >>    Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada

> --
>   Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada

>    I consider ALL arguments in support of my views- Hide quoted text -
>

Hi, Robert. The countdown looks good, but let me tell you that there
could be variations due to the genealogies, which could show a father
as being a grandparent, since the Hebrews used
Shem as being the "father of" all of Eber's children, and there
"father" means what we would call an ancestor. Eber was his great
grandchild so obviously Shem did not beget Eber's children.
Things of this nature could allow for variation, and then, it is said
that when you compare the O.T. list with the list on Luke, which is
Mary's genealogy there are some gaps to consider, so

you have to add in possibilities of any differences in the Old
Testament statements and compare genealogies. Then, the people in the
Middle East all count a newborn baby to be one year
old from the first day that he is born. Of course we consider someone
to be one year old at
the completing of the first year. In most places we count a horse as
one year old the day that
he is born, but of course not people. So the MIddle East considers
someone's age as

entering the first year, where as we consider a person's age when he
completes the year.
Now, this may be why the genealogy that you quoted is worded as it is,
so that someone
could figure it based on how long the person had lived, when their
child was born, rather
than telling the age of the person who was born. The author or keeper
of the scriptures
could have been aware of this way of speaking of someone's age, and
may have
recognized that not everyone counts age in the same way. Mary's
genealogy in Luke

goes from Christ to Adam, where the Old Testament goes from Adam
forward to
Abraham. Sometimes someone in them has a parent that is not the same
name as the
New Testament progression, and that may be because the person has two
names, or
is a step parent, etc. Mary and Joseph were from the same tribe, going
back to David,
so they do share some ancestors. Joseph's is in Matthew. Joseph is
mentioned in
both genealogies. In Mary's in Luke, he is listed as he son of Heli,
which is Mary's
father. Mary seems to have been an only child with no brother to
inherit the birthright.
In that case her husband had to be listed for legal purposes because
if she inherited
her father's birthright to pass on to her firstborn son, then her
husband was the one
that it was to go to when she got married, which may be why Joseph's
name is listed
as the son of her father. In Jewish records it is recorded that Mary
is the daughter of
Heli.
>
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

On Dec 2, 5:51 pm, Mike Painter <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 6:01 PM, Bill wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 11:04 am, Suzanne<leila...@hotmail.com>  wrote:

> >> About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
> >> of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."

> >> Narmer is the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of

> >> stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler
> >> of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
> >> "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets, such as the one called
> >> "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." Many
> >> archaeologists take into account that Enmerker has the same

> >> basic consonants as Nimrod/Nimrud in the Bible which are
> >> the sounds NMR. NiMRod; eNMRker. According to the Bible,
> >> Nimrod lived after the flood of Noah after the population
> >> had a great comeback. Nimrod, of course is the leader that

> >> wanted to build the tower of Babyl.
>

> >> Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert but was a lush
> >> tropical place, according to scientists. The waters of the NIle
> >> would surge to as much as 27 feet once a year, bringing
> >> rich silt which the Egyptian villages learned to use as a resource for
> >> crops. The source of it being the waters running off of the moutains
> >> of Ethiopia, combined with the waters of the Blue Nile as well as the
> >> White NIle.
>

> >> I wonder if Narmer was Nimrod and if he left Mesopotamia after the

> >> Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
> >> Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.
>

> > Suzanne, there's all sorts of interesting, well-established history
> > and archaeology about the ancient middle east. Why don't you read some
> > of it instead of letting yourself get repeatedly duped by internet
> > cranks?
>

> Suzanne has read some well established history and has even given a
> reference.(A big mistake on her part)
> She defended her conclusions, based on this particular article, even
> though the writer claims exactly the opposite.
> Remember, this is the woman who told us that,
> "It (light) includes  microwaves, and even radio waves.
> These are all  really the same thing, a stream of
> photons that  move at certain frequencies,
> producing waves of energy, identifiable by the
> speed at which  they are moving. Your ears
> 'hear' the light  when it is at a certain level of
> speed in it's  wave formed lengths. Wehn it is
> faster, you  see the light. "- Hide quoted text -
>

You have expressed this incorrectly, Mike.
I didn't say "If light," I said that light does includes those, and
yes that is radio waves that it includes.
You didn't seem to understand that it includes
radio waves. You all made fun of that. I was making
a joke, saying that you could "hear" light. You can't
hear light, Mike, it was a joke because it was radio
waves and they were light. The radio that emits
sound merely uses the radio waves to send out
the sound waves. You didn't get the humor since
you didn't seem to realize that radio waves are
included in the EMR Spectrum. Everything in the
spectrum travels at the speed of light. And yes
this is all "light energy," because of the fact
that everything in it travels at the speed of light.
To make a distinction which some do now, there
are certain groups that only refer to some of the
energies as being "light." But many at NASA, which
reflects the earlier way of teaching this, refer to
radio waves as being light. The Spectrum used
to be called the Electromagnetic Spectrum of Light.
Some abandoned the word "Light" when designating
the EM Spectrum. Probably more people than not,
took that up. The truth is, just because you can't
"see" some of these energies, or indeed "hear"
them, they nevertheless are still in that Spectrum
of things that travel at the speed of light.
>
And YES they are all the same thing: light, because
of the speed at which they travel.
>
The frequency is also a movement, and that
because it is as a vibration. The frequency is a
speed of vibration, and each of these things
within the spectrum are found within a certain
range of frequencies.
>
You can find statements on the Internet saying
that radio waves are not light, but are a form of
radiation. Those are not too bright of statements
because visible light is also a form of radiation.
You can also find statements on the Internet that
say that radio waves *are* a form of light.
Here is a website saying that radio waves are a
form of light from NASA:
missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/02_anatomy.html

Here is a website saying that radio waves are not
a form of light:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090411161133AAWFg3G

The reason that the second says that is because I suppose they think
if they are not visible, then they
are not light. We know that you can't see infrared,
or ultraviolet, too, yet they are light. But Hertz
proved that radio waves ARE light because they
travel at the speed of light. Our eyes are limited
and we cannot see a wavelength as long as radio
waves. But that doesn't stop it from being light.
For example a dog can hear supersonic sounds
and we cannot. That's what a dog whistle produces.
So, just because we can't hear the sound that a dog
can hear, that doesn't make the supersonic sounds
to not be sound.
>
Here's another thing that confuses people. You can see on the Internet
that radio waves act more like
sound than they do light. That is because "they"
(whoever they is) think that the sound waves that
the radio sends out that we receive on radios,
are not the same thing as the radio waves that are
in the Spectrum The radio stations send out
sound waves OVER THE MEDIUM of the energy
that is called *radio waves." the sound waves from
the radio, we are accustomed to calling radio waves,
but they are just sound waves that utilize the energy
called radio waves in the spectrum. Now if this
sounds reminiscent of the comic routine, "Who's
on First," that can't be helped They are two different
things sound wavds from teh radio and radio wave
energy that is in the Electromagnetic Radiation
Spectrum.
>
Frequency is a rate of speed at which a thing
vibrates. Speed of light is a speed at which
the energy travels to get somewhere. So there
is a difference between those two.
>
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

On Dec 2, 9:31 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The faster the frequency, the more it comes within
your visual view. There are frequencies of the
energies in the Radiation Spectrum that are not
within the range of our visual perception.
>
Suzanne

[Ernest Major]

In message
<2cee3ee2-4821-4333...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> writes

A map which shows the Nile Delta as not desert.

But it doesn't show that it is now a desert, and it doesn't show that it
is tropical rather than semi-/sub-tropical.

>
>Your criticism was rude, don't you think?

No.

> There is an old saying that
>if you wish to critique, keep your words sweet, 'cause you never know
>but what you might have to eat them.

Have you considered taking your own advice?

> I don't mind if you disagree,
>that's
>fine. I think you could have said what you did a lot more scholarly,
>and
>nicer, and above all you should have been right, but I don't see that
>you were.

I was right. That papyrus grows in tropical and *sub-tropical* areas,
including the Nile Delta, does not make the Nile Delta tropical. (But
that was the lesser error on your part.)

Nor does the fact that the bounds of the Nile Delta (as a hydrological
unit) may have varied validate your claim that it is now a desert.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

On Dec 11, 1:10 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 5:34 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:> On 26/11/2011 04:04, Suzanne wrote:
>
> > > About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
> > > of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."
> > > Narmer is the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of
> > > stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler
> > > of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
> > > "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets,
>
> > How would you know how  his name "sounded like"? Have you found a voice
> > recording from Mesopotamia in your attic?
>
> Very clever. His name sounded like.

You have absolutely NO idea how his name sounded, and neither has
anybody else - on account of there being no voice recordings from that
time. It is difficult enough to second guess their writing, your idea
that they "sound alike" is pure fantasy

>
> > > such as the one called
> > > "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." Many
> > > archaeologists
>
> > Who are these "many"? The only one with something looking like
> > credentials is the Rock musician and mysticist  David Rohl, who was for
> > some time director of the ISIS institute, a private charity with links
> > to Velikovsky. While that already more or less automatically put them on
> > the borderline for seriousness, even they could not quite cope with the
> > "unorthodox" (utterly cranky)ideas of Rohl, who succeeded in running it
> > down pretty fast. He now has a band again, arguably for the best
>
> Funny that you should mention that. Do you know that I have been
> said to sound like Velikovsky, but when someone first said that, I
> had never heard of him. That's coincidental. I've done a lot of
> studying
> when I was teaching ESL and accent reduction. I learned how words
> got into other languages,

From your posting record, this should be "you misunderstood how words
get into other languages"

>and how many of the consonants were
> interchangeable when you are trying to figure out the origin of
> something. The reason for that is that when transferring a word
> from one language to another, they do their best to transfer it
> phonetically.

Indeed. which is one of the reasons almost all your etymologies are
simply phoney, build on nothing but speculations and obviously wrong
speculations for that.
You don't base your derivations on the phonic transcriptions of either
source or target language, You totally ignore the known phonological
rules of either and how they handle vowel and consonant changes, and
you don't give anything like a plausible derivation from one word to
the other. Instead, you rely exclusively on vague and unsystematic
similarities between the transliterated graphems into English.

> In so doing, all languages do not have the same
> alphabet or sounds in their alphabet. So, they do their best to find
> the nearest equivalent in their own language. One of the reasons
> for the differences in sounds is that someone may not strike the
> tongue inside the mouth in the same way on a similar sounding
> consonant, so they can't quite "hear" how the person is saying a
> word in their own language. That is, they don't know how to
> emulate the sound that they are hearing.  I can give you an
> example.

You really don't need to give me, or anyone else in this NG and
example of what I would have hoped every secondary school pupil knows.
None of the post below addresses the problems with your claims of
similarity bewteen words, and that you think they do only shows more
how little your really understand about linguistic change and how to
determine if two words are related

>In English, when we say an "R," the tongue does not
> toujch the roof of the mouth, but most of the tongue is stiffened
> in an upwards slant, while the tip of the tongue keeps on
> traveling upwards to complete the sound of the R. In a way if
> you slowed it down, you would hear "are-er" - unless you are
> from West Texas, Alabama, parts of Georgia and parts of
> New England, which would pronounce an "R" as an "Ah."
> Some consonants that are interchangeable are
> g, ch/k, t, p, sh/ch, b/p/v, v/w/f, d/th, m/n, etc.
> A "B" in Mexico is soft sounding like a th in those only said
> where the lips form a "B" but wth more air coming through
> the lips. The Mexican "D" has the tongue striking the back
> of the two front teeth, rather than striking at the front of
> the roof of the mouth behind the front teeth. So their
> "D" sounds softer, or may have the part of the tongue on
> the top, but not the tip form the "D" sound.

Fine. Now give us a derivation of "Nimrod" in Hebrew from "Enmerkar"
in Sumerian. state the same rules of consonant change for the two
languages that you noted above for Spanish and English. You can use as
many languages as intermediaries as you wish, provided that the
timeline that you get as a result matches what we know about language
contacts at the relevant time (so not going via English or German,
e.g.) Cites to the relevant literature on Summerian etc please. Then
and only then would you at least have shown that the derivation is at
least _possible_, let alone plausible or likely.

This may sound
> boring to you, and I don't mean for it to be.
>
> Another thing is that in certain places, when a consonant
> is spoken at the beginning of a word, or at the end of a
> word, there might be a slight "uh" sound spoken. For
> example in English we woud say, if you slowed it down
> "Emm-muh" when pronouncing an the "M" on the end of
> "Mom."  Some in English would say "Emmm" and close
> down their lips until after the word is spoken, while
> others would say "Mom-muh" with the "muh" barely
> audible. Who ever brought the country of Spain's name
> into the English language must have discounted the
> sound at the beginning of the name of the coutnry,
> because it really is "Espania" (with a tilde instead of
> the added "i" that I just made). I had purchased some
> textbooks about this sort of thing when I was teaching
> the accent reduction class,

Maybe it is time to read them now?

> which I had purchased at
> the bookstore of the college I was teaching at, and
> learned much from them.
>
> > take into account that Enmerker has the same
>
> > > basic consonants as Nimrod/Nimrud in the Bible which are
> > > the sounds NMR. NiMRod; eNMRker.
>
> > and don't forget NuMeRia, the goddess of childbirth in ancient Rome.
> > OBVIOUSLY, Nimrod and Enmerker were really woman dressed as man, but
> > this hidden knowledge was oppressed by the patriarchic societies they
> > lived in. Most of the figures of history were really woman, Kind David
> > e.g. was really a Davina. (note the similarity in  spelling)  Why, I
> > shoudl immediately put this massive new insight that will revolutionise
> > history as we know it on a website, so that the gullible can find it.
>
> You are making fun of me, and you are also wrong.

My claim of similarity bewteen the word is _exactly_ as well founded
as yours

>

> And by the way, David Rohl is a great archaeologist. He did a
> masterful job of figuring out what the Bible says is the location
> of the Garden of Eden.

David Rohl is a rock musician who failed to complete a PhD in
archaeology,, dabbled afterwards in archeology, publishing his own
journal (since nobody else would publish his stuff) and for a short
time let a private institute at the very fringe of archaeological
science - and even they eventually decided his ideas were without
merit and regrouped. He now runs a band again, a great gain for both
music and archaeology. While he is better than the real crackpots like
Velikovsky and at least knows the existing literature, he cherry picks
at will to come to the conclusion he wants

> You may not know who has opposed
> him or why.

Of course I do.

Who: pretty much every serious egyptologist and archaeologist. This
includes people like Ken Kitchen who is otherwise as close to a
biblical maximalist as you get these days, and who argued for the
historical accuracy of much of the OT. He called Rohl's theory "100%
nonsense" (Kitchen, Kenneth (2003). "Egyptian interventions in the
Levant in Iron Age II". In Dever, William G.. Symbiosis, symbolism,
and the power of the past: Canaan, ancient Israel, and their
neighbours from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina



Why: because his ideas are largely speculations, methodologically
poor, contradicted by a wealth of evidence from linguistics,
traditional and modern scientific methods of dating of artefacts, and
also a wealth of historical records that we have. Christopher Bronk
Ramsey et al., Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt,
Science Vol. 328. no. 5985 (2010),

> He challenged that the Egyptian Chronology may
> be off and I suppose there are some folks who had worked
> hard on that who didn't want to accept his suggestion.

Well, yes, because his suggestions ignored the evidence. If you work
hard at a problem, doing real work, actually taking the evidence
serious which is a difficult and time consuming piece of work, and
then put it up to the scrutiny of all the other experts in the field,
you get annoyed when someone with the most basic grasp of methodology
makes TV programs for popular consumption, all very slick as he has
experience in showbusiness, and misrepresents your entire field of
work, people get upset.

When
> he approached the Garden of Eden thing, before he ever
> came out with it I had a student from Baghdad, who had told
> me of the location that he went to up in the north of Iran,
> near to the top of Iraq and also near Armenia, up at the
> head of the two rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates. He noticed
> something others never saw

Ehh, I think if you actually read his book, he gives credit to Reginal
Walker there - so he did not really come up with the idea, others have
spotted it before and it was one contender for quite some times

that I saw when studing the
> passage and may others have seen too. It says in the
> Bible that the heads of the rivers started with a single
> river that went by the Garden of Eden to water it, and from
> there, the Bible says, it broke into 4 heads. Two of them
> are the ones I mentioned. A third river had an ancient name
> which is named in the Bible but the Pison threw people. Then
> he found out the Hebrew didn't have an "O" in it because
> they didn't spell out vowels then and they were not in their
> alphabet. He realized then that the O had been substituted
> with a "p" sound. And he found a river nearby to the location
> which was the Oison.

That would have been odd. There is no documented P-O change to the
best of my knowledge, and also no river Oison. Giving credit to Rohl,
it is also not what Rohl says. He identifies Pishon from Uizhun,
noting that Semitic "p" is documented to be substituted with Iranian
U. See, that how it is done - you have actually documented examples
of change, and in this case, that gives you at least a _possible_
derivation.

Now, others who had looked for the
> Garden location did not seem to get the direction of the
> flow of the rivers. They began up in the moutains and that
> is the head, and the mouth of the rivers is at the mouth of
> the Persian Gulf. I guess they thought of the mouth of a
> river being located in a head, which is where a mouth
> usually is. But they took that error a long way because
> many look to the mouth of the Persian Gulf as the
> Garden being under the water and under the seafloor
> because of the great natural aquifer that is located in
> that region. As soon as I saw in a documentary on TV
> about David Rohl's having notied that the origin of the
> rivers would have been in the north of the countries,
> I knew he was onto something. So I like his work very
> much. He went by llegends, traditions in those regions,
> and did a very masterful job of going there himself and
> looking for this.
>

I can imagine that you like his work. Just like you, he ignores
facts, and prefers to confabulate something that fits into what he
wants to find/

> >   According to the Bible,
>
> > > Nimrod lived after the flood of Noah after the population
> > > had a great comeback. Nimrod, of course is the leader that
> > > wanted to build the tower of Babyl.
>
> > > Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert
>
> > You don't say. The Nile delta is also not a desert now.
>
> The Nile Delta is right up against the very Sahara, which
> has grown tremendously.

Doesn't make the Nile delta a desert. Wasn't one then, isn't one now.

>
> >   but was a lush
>
> > > tropical place, according to scientists.
>
> > Really? Any cite to scientists who claim the Nile delta was at some
> > point tropical? really like to see how they substantiate that.
>
> Yes, really. You can see a website reference in another post
> in this thread.

The website you linked not did not mention the word tropical or
subtropical at all. the quote about papyri said that it "ranges from

subtropical to tropical desert to wet

forests" from whic you somehow conclude that because papyri grow in
the nile delta, it must have been tropical (and not subtropical, or
wet forests)

[Vincent Maycock]

"Suzanne" <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:58a5f221-4627-46a3...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

snip

> The faster the frequency, the more it comes within
> your visual view.

Not necessarily. Ultraviolet rays, x-rays, and gamma rays have higher
frequencies than visible light does.

> There are frequencies of the
> energies in the Radiation Spectrum that are not
> within the range of our visual perception.

True.

Vincent

[Harry K]

On Dec 10, 11:38 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 5:51 pm, Mike Painter <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 11/28/2011 6:01 PM, Bill wrote:
>

<snip>

Oh, my sweet jaysus!! I'm off to try to wash _that_ out of my brain.
I hope whatever it is you have is not catching!

Harry K

[RMcBane]

Suzanne,
You are aware that you can not hear radio waves?


--
Richard McBane

[walksalone]

Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4906aa6e-535c-4aff-9aa3-
12173d...@p14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 30, 12:50 am, Mike Palmer <mpalmer1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 8:04 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:


Snip fantastic journey.

>> > I wonder if Narmer was Nimrod and if he left Mesopotamia after the
>> > Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
>> > Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.
>>
>> > Suzanne
>>

>> I believe you're confusing Narmer with Archie's pal Jughead (who,
>> IIRC, married Etta Kett).- Hide quoted text -
>>
> Cute. Now be serious.

His response was just as serious as you earned.

walksalone who has no doubt Suzanne takes herself seriously, But othes in
the newsgroup? Not so much I suspect.

A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a
superstition. -Jose Bergamin, author (1895-1983)

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/10/11 5:30 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>> [...]

> Someone that might know, please explain to me how
> water around an island and near to a mainland can
> be wrmer than the mainland. I have never looked that
> up. Anyone know?

I can guess. On mainlaind: sun warms land; land warms air; air rises;
cooler air comes in.
In shallow water: sun warms land; land warms water; water does not rise,
stays where it is.

[walksalone]

Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:2e2c1389-bd65-4dee-8732-
34d0d5...@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 25, 10:17 pm, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <aa406342-53bc-499b-91a0-d76b369f7...@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

>>  Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > About 5,000 years ago, the first great leader of Egypt, that we know
>> > of, had a gigantic battle with the "papyrus people."
>> > Narmer is the one in Egyptian depictions that had a sort of
>> > stylyzed bottle shaped hat kind of crown. He evidently was the ruler
>> > of upper and lower Egypt. It occurred to me that he sounds like
>> > "Enmerker," of Mesopotamian clay tablets, such as the one called
>> > "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta." Many
>> > archaeologists take into account that Enmerker has the same
>> > basic consonants as Nimrod/Nimrud in the Bible which are

Is this the site you got that from? You may want to check ypour
gullibility at ythe door when you enter that type of site, for science it
is not.
Overview, There is no evidence for a global flood at no time in the history
of the planet.
There are no archaeologial remains that indicate a global catastrophe as
claimed in the Hebrew bible account of the Sumerian flood that pre dates
Gilgimesh. From which the flood story was copped.

Now you want to have fun, about 8000 years ago IAW The Italian Volcan oeist
Dept., there was a tsunami that wiped olut the Mediterainina coastal life.
Are ypou going to claim that event as the flood? Good luck.

>> > the sounds NMR. NiMRod; eNMRker. According to the Bible,

Using the spelling conventions of the time, Nimrod would likely be NMRD,
the vowels were dropped & I don't know as any dialectic marks would have
been used.

>> > Nimrod lived after the flood of Noah after the population
>> > had a great comeback. Nimrod, of course is the leader that
>> > wanted to build the tower of Babyl.

No, there was no tower of babel as claimed by the Hebrew Biblw. There were
ziggurats, emense temples. But as claimed by the unknown authors of the
Hebrew Bible, not even close.

>> > Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert but was a lush
>> > tropical place, according to scientists. The waters of the NIle

& their names are. & they are indeed climatologists, which is the branch
of science concerend with climatic change. Or are they? Given the
standards of evidence you have displayed, not bloody likely.

>> > would surge to as much as 27 feet once a year, bringing
>> > rich silt which the Egyptian villages learned to use as a resource for
>> > crops. The source of it being the waters running off of the moutains
>> > of Ethiopia, combined with the waters of the Blue Nile as well as the
>> > White NIle.

One out of all the pretensions ypou are making is not a good average.

>> > I wonder if Narmer was Nimrod and if he left Mesopotamia after the
>> > Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
>> > Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.

Why would hje even be inclined to do that? Are you assuming he would think
like you do, or that he would have to be that much different than other
heroes of the time? Can you even establish his existence?

>> > Suzanne
>>
>> Good grief Suzanne; this is nothing but cheap association, in total
>> ignorance of the actual Egyptian (or Mesopotamian) contexts. There
>> are hundreds (even thousands) of years of pre-unification Egyptian
>> context for Narmer. There are also thousands of years of context for
>> the development of civilization in Anatolia and Meospotamia. None of
>> your silly suggestions have the _slightest_ resemblance to what is,
>> in fact, KNOWN about these matters. There are some hints to suggest
>> influence from Mesopotamia in the era of Egyptian unification. Your
>> "Nimrod" suggestion is merely idiotic. (And the "Tower of Babel" is
>> most likely a very _late_ notion imported into Jewish scripture after
>> the Babylonian Captivity, some 2000 years after the formation of the

>> Egyptian unified pharaonic kingdom.)- Hide quoted text -
>>
> The Tower of Babel incident happened after the flood of Noah, not

No it didn't. How can I say that to a true vbeliever, very easy. Lacka.
Lack of evidence. A world wide event that was never noticed except by the
Sumerians, who did not claim world wide, & an unkown author for the Hebew
Bible.

> when you are suggesting. History bears it out because the first
> pyramids were step pyramids, and those are still found in Iraq,

Indeed tghey were, & Egypt is given as their place of origin by more than
one historian, Including the one who has mummified a cadaver, Egyptian
style.

> which then became Mesopotamia. Earlier it was called Arata,

& your erronious source for this is found where, in the annals of history
or archaeology?

> which is what the Ararat Mountains came from, earlier written as

You mean Chaldea?

> Ururat, which is also where the name Ur, Eridu, Erech/URuk, comes
> from. Erech is what Iraq comes from, and depending upon which
> language or dialect is used, the spellings of each will be different.

snip

> Iran has the Zagros mountains in it, and they move into the
> Ararat Mountains that are in Eastern Turkey, with Armenia
> being there also. Narmer is the Scorpian King of very early
> Egypt. Egyptian Chronology has been changed about 3 times
> in my lifetime. They swear that they have it right now, but

They do, fancy that. Amazing the thingas people claim, & don't support
with factual information.

Now, do the timelines change? Why yes, as expected. After all, with
radiooactive dateing & other techniques being continously refined, that
would be expected. But then, you ignore that because it does not let you
appear to be correct with reason.

> there are still some things that don't add up, and some facts
> missing. When Hatshepsut ruled she died mysteriously and

That surprised you? Why?

> she had done great things. Her statues were defaced and
> her funerary was hidden under the sands of Egypt until

Nothing nerw there. Considering the times, rather mundane. Humans haven't
changed all that much.

> in recent years it was discovered and unearthed to reveal
> one of the most beautiful of all the Egyptian buildings. Many
> think she could have been the Egyptian adopted mother of

Not anyone familiar with history, but xians, yes I could see that.

> the baby Moses. In her funerary building there is a painting,
> so I have read, that depicts her, hoding a baby which some
> say could be the baby Moses.Egyptologists will say that

Her, or Isis & Horus. Think the Black maddona.

> the Egyptian Chronologyy is correct, but they are referring
> to the current one. As you must surely know, when something
> new is found, sometimes people will have to revise what they
> think the chronology is. You know the archaeologists do
> their best to keep the information correct.

& in spite of those like you, in spite of your confusion you wish others
would share, their writings do a fair job.

walksalone who might well do a write up on Nimrod. Not that it would
actually change Suzannes mind, but others could access the info if so
inclined. & not without the consent of the group.


Scriptures: The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from
the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.
Ambrose Bierce

[Ernest Major]

In message <jc2ok5$86u$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> writes

>On 12/10/11 5:30 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>>> [...]
>> Someone that might know, please explain to me how
>> water around an island and near to a mainland can
>> be wrmer than the mainland. I have never looked that
>> up. Anyone know?
>
>I can guess. On mainlaind: sun warms land; land warms air; air rises;
>cooler air comes in.
>In shallow water: sun warms land; land warms water; water does not
>rise, stays where it is.
>

This situation is commonly a result of thermal inertia. Water bodies
change temperature less rapidly that land. In the British Isles, for
example, during the winter months the sea temperature is greater than
the temperature of the adjacent land. I was taught that this was due to
water having a higher heat capacity (per unit volume). While this is
true, the fact that water is mixed to a certain depth, while transport
of heat in to and out of soil is slow, meaning that a greater effective
mass per unit area is involved in exchange of heat with space in the
case of water bodies, might be more important.

The delivery of warm water by the North Atlantic Drift also contributes,
with the resulting presence of several "sub-tropical" gardens on the
west coast of Scotland (e.g. Logan, Inverewe).
--
alias Ernest Major

[Suzanne]

On Dec 11, 3:36 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message

> <2cee3ee2-4821-4333-b8e3-7312adb6e...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> writes

What did I just say? I had replied, still visible above, that the
Delta
is still green. So why are you saying that the map shows the
Nile Delta is not desert?

>
>
>
>
>
> >You see a photo
> >of Delta up close and looks like it's all verdant, but it has grown
> >smaller, and you know the desert is right next to it because the
> >Sphinx is in Cairo and you can see the sands at the Valley of the
> >Kings. You can also see the palm trees in some photos at this website.
> >Ernest, my parents lived in Libya next to  Egypt. so they told me many
> >things about the area. The tropical and subtropical parts of Egypt go
> >right straight next to the Sahara.

> >http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/students/curriculum/m16/activit...

I agree with you. I showed the map so that a person can see
that it is right up against the desert, which I had spoken about.
I also was establishing that it had at one time been tropical,
or subtropical.

>
>
> >Your criticism was rude, don't you think?
>
> No.
>

Ii think they were.

>
> > There is an old saying that
> >if you wish to critique, keep your words sweet, 'cause you never know
> >but what you might have to eat them.
>
> Have you considered taking your own advice?
>

You better believe it.

>
> > I don't mind if you disagree,
> >that's
> >fine. I think you could have said what you did a lot more scholarly,
> >and
> >nicer, and above all you should have been right, but I don't see that
> >you were.
>
> I was right. That papyrus grows in tropical and *sub-tropical* areas,
> including the Nile Delta, does not make the Nile Delta tropical. (But
> that was the lesser error on your part.)
>

The point was that it was tropical which is what I wanted
to show in the first place, not what it is now. And that
there have been climate and/or vegetation changes,
maybe do to the advancement the growing Sahara Desert.
I think showing that the papyrus used to grow there, but
now doesn't establishes that. Plus, the kind of wild animals
are no longer there that used to be there as well. I mentioned
the moringa used to grow there, and now it is seen much
further south now. The moringa is a shurb which can grow
into a small tree, and when put into brackish water, it will
sweeten the water. We have a similar plant that grows in
the entrances of rivers in Florida and a few other places
that does something oike that too, the mangrove shrub.
Oh, I forgot to mention something else, too. There is
submerged land in the water right by the delta, of some
land that is sunken since Cleopatra's day. in fact, do you
remember in the last few years they found a statue and
pulled it up? So, some of the Delta region is now
under water.

>
> Nor does the fact that the bounds of the Nile Delta (as a hydrological
> unit) may have varied validate your claim that it is now a desert.
>

You seem to be missing something. The Delta is green
and that is a fact. But the Delta was much larger previoiusly
and has now got the Sahara over it. Not only that but
some of it has also fallen into the sea. So, it has been
diminished by the Sarah behind it, and the Mediterranean
in front of it. The map which I provided showed this. That
is why it was shown. You can say the Delta is still green.
But you are only seeing a portion of it's former self.
>
Suzanne
>

[Ernest Major]

In message
<2b206103-3875-4c92...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> writes

Your prior statement was "Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert
but was a lush tropical place, according to scientists." The Nile Delta
is not now a desert (as you now concede) (in the ecological sense),
contrary to that statement.

You haven't shown it was tropical. The presence of a plant that grows in
tropical and *sub-tropical* areas does not demonstrate that an area is
tropical.

>And that
>there have been climate and/or vegetation changes,
>maybe do to the advancement the growing Sahara Desert.
>I think showing that the papyrus used to grow there, but
>now doesn't establishes that.

Firstly, papyrus still grows in the Nile Delta. Fide Wikipedia, "it has
become rare in the Nile Delta". Secondly, changes in distribution can
have various causes, so even if papyrus was absent from the Nile Delta,
that wouldn't be sufficient to support your case. My guess would be that
the reduction in the presence of papyrus is a consequence of the
intensification of agriculture.

>Plus, the kind of wild animals
>are no longer there that used to be there as well. I mentioned
>the moringa used to grow there, and now it is seen much
>further south now. The moringa is a shurb which can grow
>into a small tree, and when put into brackish water, it will
>sweeten the water. We have a similar plant that grows in
>the entrances of rivers in Florida and a few other places
>that does something oike that too, the mangrove shrub.
>Oh, I forgot to mention something else, too. There is
>submerged land in the water right by the delta, of some
>land that is sunken since Cleopatra's day. in fact, do you
>remember in the last few years they found a statue and
>pulled it up? So, some of the Delta region is now
>under water.
>>
>> Nor does the fact that the bounds of the Nile Delta (as a hydrological
>> unit) may have varied validate your claim that it is now a desert.
>>
>You seem to be missing something. The Delta is green
>and that is a fact. But the Delta was much larger previoiusly
>and has now got the Sahara over it.

You haven't adduced any evidence for that claim.

Much of what is now desert in the Sahara was previously not desert. But
that doesn't make it a former part of the Nile Delta. Firstly the Nile
Delta is a primarily a hydrological unit, not an ecological unit.
Secondly, the former vegetation of parts of the Sahara was likely
savanna, forming a different ecological unit from the Nile Delta.

The Nile Delta may have been larger once (I'm not finding a clear
statement as to whether the Wadi El Natrun represents a former
distributary of the Nile), but "much larger" doesn't seem correct.
Remember, that Nile Delta is primarily a hydrological unit.

> Not only that but
>some of it has also fallen into the sea.

Hardly relevant.

>So, it has been
>diminished by the Sarah behind it, and the Mediterranean
>in front of it. The map which I provided showed this. That
>is why it was shown.

To show that you need a map or maps showing the former and current
extents of Nile Delta. The maps at
<URL:http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/students/curriculum/m16/activi
ty1.php> don't show a former extent (nor a current extent).

>You can say the Delta is still green.
>But you are only seeing a portion of it's former self.
>>
>Suzanne
>>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

>website for the perspective relative to rest of area. You see a photo

>of Delta up close and looks like it's all verdant, but it has grown
>smaller, and you know the desert is right next to it because the
>Sphinx is in Cairo and you can see the sands at the Valley of the
>Kings. You can also see the palm trees in some photos at this website.
>Ernest, my parents lived in Libya next to Egypt. so they told me many
>things about the area. The tropical and subtropical parts of Egypt go
>right straight next to the Sahara.

>http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/students/curriculum/m16/activity1.php

>Your criticism was rude, don't you think? There is an old saying that

>if you wish to critique, keep your words sweet, 'cause you never know

>but what you might have to eat them. I don't mind if you disagree,

>that's
>fine. I think you could have said what you did a lot more scholarly,
>and
>nicer, and above all you should have been right, but I don't see that
>you were.
>

> j&%&y
>%(*_*)%
>>
>>
>Regards,
>Suzanne

Suzanne,

ISTM you're adding to the confusion here. First, you replied to two
different people; Michael Siemon and Ernest Major. Their two writing
styles are distinctive, but personally, I wouldn't call either reply
rude. YMMV. Either way, ISTM Ernest's reply, as always, is
especially above reproach.

Second, ISTM two different definitions for tropical are being
conflated:

1. Of or pertaining to the tropics, the equatorial region between 23
degrees north and 23 degrees south.

2. From or similar to a hot humid climate, e.g. tropical fruit,
tropical weather.

Cairo, which is on the south side of the Nile Delta, is about 30
degrees north latitude, so the entire Nile Delta lies entirely outside
the area between the Tropic Latitudes, so def. 1 above doesn't even
apply to this discussion.

ISTM your use of the word "tropic" is more similar to 2 above. Yes
it's true that all of Egypt was wetter in the past than it is now.
Yes it's true that the Nile Delta is more humid than the rest of
Egypt. Yes it's true that the Nile Delta is smaller than in the past,
particularly since the Aswan Hight Dam was completed around 1970. But
none of these things have anything to do with the fact that the Nile
Delta can't reasonably be described as tropical. Tropical implies
humidity coming from rain averaging hundreds of inches per year.
There's no part of Egypt, including the Delta, which averages more
than 10 inches of ran per year. That's less rainfall than the U.S
high plains.

Finally, you wrote above:

"Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert..."

I'm pretty sure everybody agrees it wasn't a desert back then, and it

[jillery]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:40:34 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
<leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip to point>

>You seem to be missing something. The Delta is green
>and that is a fact. But the Delta was much larger previoiusly
>and has now got the Sahara over it. Not only that but
>some of it has also fallen into the sea. So, it has been
>diminished by the Sarah behind it, and the Mediterranean
>in front of it. The map which I provided showed this. That
>is why it was shown. You can say the Delta is still green.
>But you are only seeing a portion of it's former self.

The map I saw at the URL you provided is an overall view of North
Africa, and doesn't show the detail you describe above.

[Harry K]

> >http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/students/curriculum/m16/activit...

> isn't a desert now.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Excellent post!!

Harry K

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/11/11 8:50 AM, RMcBane wrote:
> On 12/11/2011 2:38 AM, Suzanne wrote:

>>> [...]

Maybe if you have the right tooth fillings . . .

[Suzanne]

On Dec 12, 2:32 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message

> <2b206103-3875-4c92-950e-a3b125301...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

Not exactly. I said that the Delta is much smaller now, that
some of it fell into the sea on the north, and that on the
south it has turned into desert, but for all practical purposes,
some of it is not a desert and has escaped the desert, while
other parts of the Delta is no longer green, but is in fact
part of the Sahara Desert.
>
Do consider that back in time, even in the ancient days of
Moses, the setting may have been green, rather than the
desert scene that is depicted in movies. If you think it
through, would those ancient Egypians have built Cairo
on sand, or would they have run to the desert to build the
city? If you think about it, they might've had green around
them, rather than the sands we see in movies. To us today
we think of the sands as being a beautiful backdrop to the
buildings, the pyramids, the Sphinx. But we are accustomed
to thinking of it that way. But could you envision some guy
moving his wife near to this gorgeous grean place and
then telling his wife...."Honey, let's don't build out city in
this fresh, wonderful green area, let's build our house and
city out there in the desert."

I did and repeat it in the other post that I turned in before
this one.

>
>
> >And that
> >there have been climate and/or vegetation changes,
> >maybe do to the advancement the growing Sahara Desert.
> >I think showing that the papyrus used to grow there, but
> >now doesn't establishes that.
>
> Firstly, papyrus still grows in the Nile Delta. Fide Wikipedia, "it has
> become rare in the Nile Delta". Secondly, changes in distribution can
> have various causes, so even if papyrus was absent from the Nile Delta,
> that wouldn't be sufficient to support your case. My guess would be that
> the reduction in the presence of papyrus is a consequence of the
> intensification of agriculture.
>

I can grow a banana tree in my front yard and we get snow.
If I but the banana tree back, and cover it when it is going
to get really cold, it will winter over with care. If it is going
to freeze, I can take the cut back banana tree out of the
ground, bring it in the house in a dishpan, and then go and
replant it when the danger of ice is over. But we are talking\
about it growing naturally in the Delta.It tends not to grow
there now. My parents lived next door to Egypt in Libya,
on the Mediterranean.

>
>
>
> >Plus, the kind of wild animals
> >are no longer there that used to be there as well. I mentioned
> >the moringa used to grow there, and now it is seen much
> >further south now. The moringa is a shurb which can grow
> >into a small tree, and when put into brackish water, it will
> >sweeten the water. We have a similar plant that grows in
> >the entrances of rivers in Florida and a few other places
> >that does something oike that too, the mangrove shrub.
> >Oh, I forgot to mention something else, too. There is
>

> ...
>
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

On Dec 12, 5:35 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

I've heard of the radio being received in tooth fillings.
That's pretty amazing. I don't know how this happens,
do you by any chance?
>
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

On Dec 12, 3:07 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:40:34 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
>

It is the second map on the webpage. Both things are true. The Delta
was green in the past, and still is, and
the Delta is covered also now by the Saharah. : )
This is because now, the only Delta you see is what
is left of it's former self. But some of what is now
desert is part of the Delta now covered with sand.
>
Suzanne
>

[Suzanne]

> >http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/students/curriculum/m16/activit...

What I've read is that many years ago, there was much more rain,
and humidity. They also had a moist forest nearby.

>
> Finally, you wrote above:
>
> "Back in time, the Nile Delta was not a desert..."
>
> I'm pretty sure everybody agrees it wasn't a desert back then, and it

> isn't a desert now.- Hide quoted text -
>

No, that's half right. Part of the Delta green is gone, gone, gone,
because the Sahara covers it. Part of it is still lush and green.
So it is both. Part of it sunk into the sea, so it's quite dimished
from what it used to be. There was a documentary on TV about
the Sahara and how it has grown farther and farther across the
top of Africa. If you ever see it such as on History International
channel, "HI" it is a good one and maybe National Geographic
has some information about it, too.
>
You know what I want to know? I wonder what is under the
sand of the Sahara, and I would think there are civilizations
we would just love to know about. I wonder if anyone ha
ever used something like infrared or structure revealings
equipment to search under the sands. Lot's of people think
there is still a hall of records under the Sphinx, or near it.
>
Suzanne
>
...

[Harry K]

> ...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Lots of people thing the bible is a historical record. Those people
are also wrong. What 'lots of people think' has zero effect on
reality.

Harry K

[jillery]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:38:32 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
<leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 12, 3:07 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:40:34 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
>>
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip to point>
>>
>> >You seem to be missing something. The Delta is green
>> >and that is a fact. But the Delta was much larger previoiusly
>> >and has now got the Sahara over it.  Not only that but
>> >some of it has also fallen into the sea. So, it has been
>> >diminished by the Sarah behind it, and the Mediterranean
>> >in front of it. The map which I provided showed this. That
>> >is why it was shown. You can say the Delta is still green.
>> >But you are only seeing a portion of it's former self.
>>
>> The map I saw at the URL you provided is an overall view of North
>> Africa, and doesn't show the detail you describe above.
>>
>It is the second map on the webpage.

I followed your directions. I am referring to the second map on the

webpage.


> Both things are true. The Delta
>was green in the past, and still is, and
>the Delta is covered also now by the Saharah. : )
>This is because now, the only Delta you see is what
>is left of it's former self. But some of what is now
>desert is part of the Delta now covered with sand.

Whether both things are true or not, it can't be determined by that
map. It doesn't have enough detail.

[jillery]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:42:10 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
<leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>No, that's half right. Part of the Delta green is gone, gone, gone,
>because the Sahara covers it. Part of it is still lush and green.
>So it is both. Part of it sunk into the sea, so it's quite dimished
>from what it used to be. There was a documentary on TV about
>the Sahara and how it has grown farther and farther across the
>top of Africa. If you ever see it such as on History International
>channel, "HI" it is a good one and maybe National Geographic
>has some information about it, too.

Yes, the Sahara has expanded. No, that has nothing to do with Ernest
Major's comments about your statement.

[Mark Isaak]

Apparently the jury is still out. There have been no strictly
verifiable cases, but the anecdotal evidence cannot be entirely dismissed.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/657/is-it-possible-to-hear-radio-broadcasts-through-your-teeth

[Suzanne]

On Dec 11, 9:17 am, "Vincent Maycock" <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Suzanne" <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:58a5f221-4627-46a3...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> snip
>
> > The faster the frequency, the more it comes within
> > your visual view.
>
> Not necessarily. Ultraviolet rays, x-rays, and gamma rays have higher
> frequencies than visible light does.
>

Hey, thanks, Vincent.

>
> > There are frequencies of the
> > energies in the Radiation Spectrum that are not
> > within the range of our visual perception.
>
> True.
>
> Vincent
>

Suzanne

[Suzanne]

And this was prompted by me wondering what hidden treasure city might
be under the Sahara Desert...?
>
Suzanne

[Harry K]

On Dec 13, 2:08 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 11:32 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 12, 8:42 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 12, 2:39 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 16:21:06 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
>

<snip>

>
> > > You know what I want to know? I wonder what is under the
> > > sand of the Sahara, and I would think there are civilizations
> > > we would just love to know about. I wonder if anyone ha
> > > ever used something like infrared or structure revealings
> > > equipment to search under the sands. Lot's of people think
> > > there is still a hall of records under the Sphinx, or near it.
>
> > > Suzanne
>
> > > ...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Lots of people thing the bible is a historical record.  Those people
> > are also wrong.  What 'lots of people think' has zero effect on
> > reality.
>
> > Harry K
>
> And this was prompted by me wondering what hidden treasure city might
> be under the Sahara Desert...?
>
> Suzanne

No, it was prompted by anohter occasion of your repeated "lots of
people think" as somehow evidence of something being true.

Harry K

[Suzanne]

> Richard McBane- Hide quoted text -
>
I am aware of that indeed, Richard. You must have read someone's quote
of me saying that one could hear radio waves. That was a joke and I
had the word "hear" in quotes showing that it was a joke. But
some want to exploit it as meaning something different than it was
intended to be. I think that those
people who do this know that anything I answer will
look like a ratonalization. But they can't take away the quote marks,
showing that it was meant differently than what they are purposely
wishing it to be taken.
>
Suzanne
>
...

[Suzanne]

On Dec 11, 11:13 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4906aa6e-535c-4aff-9aa3-
> 12173da65...@p14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:

>
> > On Nov 30, 12:50 am, Mike Palmer <mpalmer1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 25, 8:04 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Snip fantastic journey.
>
> >> > I wonder if Narmer was Nimrod and if he left Mesopotamia after the
> >> > Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
> >> > Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.
>
> >> > Suzanne
>
> >> I believe you're confusing Narmer with Archie's pal Jughead (who,
> >> IIRC, married Etta Kett).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Cute. Now be serious.
>
> His response was just as serious as you earned.
>
> walksalone who has no doubt Suzanne takes herself seriously, But othes in
> the newsgroup?  Not so much I suspect.
>

Your continual efforts tend to deny your conclusions.
>..
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

On Dec 11, 11:18 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

> On 12/10/11 5:30 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>
> >> [...]
> > Someone that might know, please explain to me how
> > water around an island and near to a mainland can
> > be wrmer than the mainland. I have never looked that
> > up. Anyone know?
>
> I can guess.  On mainlaind: sun warms land; land warms air; air rises;
> cooler air comes in.
> In shallow water: sun warms land; land warms water; water does not rise,
> stays where it is.
>

Thanks. Interesting ideas. I wonderd if the fact that an island is
surrounded by salt air if that would make any difference. Of course
some islands are on fresh water.
>
Suzanne

[walksalone]

Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:0bcb5cab-a1a6-4116...@d17g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

Continual? My you do take yourself seriously.
I don't know, or cae about, the ratio of posts you present that I respond
to. It is nowhere the ratio of posts that interest me.
OTOH, I was taught that when you can help others, especially children,
you should. Helping correct pubvlic ignorance is one thing I call good.
Just as I appreciate those that help me diminish my reserve of
ignoraance. It is no fault of mine that you meander like an ancioent
river in your postings. It is no fault of mine that you present poorly
thought out attempts to impress yourself. Uhm, or do you think you are
impresing others. No matter.

walksalone who recalls one of the more plesant chores was helping
children discover they could learn new things as well as question what
they thought, & sometiomes did, know.

By education most have been misled,
So they believe because they were so bred;
The priest continues what the nurse began,
And thus the child imposes on the man.

Dryden?

[Suzanne]

On Dec 15, 5:25 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:

> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:0bcb5cab-a1a6-4116...@d17g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 11:13 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> >> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4906aa6e-535c-4aff-9aa3-
> >> 12173da65...@p14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Nov 30, 12:50 am, Mike Palmer <mpalmer1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Nov 25, 8:04 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Snip fantastic journey.
>
> >> >> > I wonder if Narmer was Nimrod and if he left Mesopotamia after
> >> >> > the Tower of Babel incident, and moved to Egypt area.
> >> >> > Or if that is later than the Tower of Babyl.
>
> >> >> > Suzanne
>
> >> >> I believe you're confusing Narmer with Archie's pal Jughead (who,
> >> >> IIRC, married Etta Kett).- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > Cute. Now be serious.
>
> >> His response was just as serious as you earned.
>
> >> walksalone who has no doubt Suzanne takes herself seriously, But
> >> othes in the newsgroup?  Not so much I suspect.
>
> > Your continual efforts tend to deny your conclusions.
>
> Continual?  My you do take yourself seriously.
>

No, it's you that take yourself seriously. I think someone tickled
your ego with the idea that you
see things that others do not see, and you
are their answer to their blindness. If that really
is your talent and if you use it for the wrong
purposes, it will backfire and not really do what
you want it to do. Someone can be doing the
right thing in the wrong place, and be producing
the opposite of what he is wanting deep down
to do. He can acquire a false sense of satisfaction,
or only a temporary fix, rather than a lasting one.

The disciples were fishing and they had fished
all day long and caught not even a small fish.
Jesus saw them, and they evidently had their
boat close enough to shore that they could
speak to one another. Jesus saw that they were
very disappointed, and he told them to let down
their nets on the other side of the boat. They
related to him that they had fished all day with
no results. Nevertheless, though it didn't make
sense, they let their nets down on the other
side. They brought up such a huge catch that
the net nearly broke up before they could get
the large draught of fishes into the boat. What
was the difference? The same fish that were
on one side, should also be on the other side.

The difference is only that they did what he said
to do, when he said to do it, and it worked. How
did it happen? Who cares? It got the result that
they desired. Whether he caused fish to go to
their nets, or that he knew a large school of
fish just happened to be coming to that spot,
doesn't matter. It's just that he knew what they
should do, and when they should do it.

Now what was he doing? Yes, he wanted them
to catch food, of course. That was how they got
an income. But everything that he taught, was a
faith producer. People do not naturally have faith
in much, if anything at all. We basically are duds
at it, and very skeptical (me included). Now here
is something that most people don't see, that
I am trying to show you who can see things that
other people can't see, that he is wanting to
produce faith in them. He is wanting to dispell
the dry effects of skepticism, and overcome
them. Skepticism should produce the result of
making a person to be careful and cautious. But
not to be destructive. When you have faith you
can make things happen that are not the usual
results. Apparently a measure of it is in us
already, but we basically don't know how to use
this "power." Some of the time, Jesus told
someone that it was the person's faith that
made them whole.Some of the time, it was
their faith in God that made the desired result
to come about. So, you do have a measure of
faith inside of you.
>
When you say over and over to a person that
they are gullible, that they are too goody-goody,
that their Bible is nonsense, and you have an
audience besides them, you are conveying, and
sending out vibes that the thing you are speaking
against, is the very thing that your audience will
notice is powerful. : )

>
> I don't know, or cae about, the ratio of posts you present that I respond
> to.  It is nowhere the ratio of posts that interest me.
> OTOH, I was taught that when you can help others, especially children,
> you should.  Helping correct pubvlic ignorance is one thing I call good.
>

No matter what you teach a child, Walksalone, he
has a mind of his own, and you cannot ever, ever
overcome the actions of the Holy Spirit to work in
that child's heart. You can't take away from them
what God wants them to know, because he can
work around your influence on them. You can't go
with them every where they go in life. They will
encounter the Lord. If you were taught what you
teach by your parents, God can overcome what
they taught you that was wrong. When people stand
befiore God, he says that they will have no excuse
to say that he didn't tell them the truth. They heard
and accepted or rejected his son. Your statement
above shows that you want to choose for the
children what to believe. You want to make the
choice for them. I don't teach that. I teach them
that they can decide for themselves, and then I
trust God for the rest.

>
>
> Just as I appreciate those that help me diminish my reserve of
> ignoraance.  It is no fault of mine that you meander like an ancioent
> river in your postings.  It is no fault of mine that you present poorly
> thought out attempts to impress yourself.  Uhm, or do you think you are
> impresing others.  No matter.
>

See, you are doing just what I said you do when I
spoke about you always attacking, that I previously
mentioned. You are also admitting that there is some
measure of faith in you that you call "ignorance."
That supposed "ignorance" that you are talking
about is the Holy Spirit giving you the truth every
time you say something negative against him. He
can say to a person in judgement that he knows
they had an equal chance because it was he,
himself, that was continually telling them what was
right, that they may have rejected. When he says
they have no excuse, it's because he is the one who was giving you the
truth, and you were calling him
"ignorance." If a person once put his trust in him
to be his savior, and if that person got really far
away from God, he still will be saved and go to
heaven, but the Bible says that he will be ashamed
at his coming. And if a person did not start out
being a Christian, they still will have had the same
influence as anyone else to turn to the Lord, but if
he does not do that, he will not be in heaven. This
is not what I say but what the Scriptures say.

>
> walksalone who recalls one of the more plesant chores was helping
> children discover they could learn new things as well as question what
> they thought, & sometiomes did, know.
>

Jesus taught that, too, when he said, THY faith
hath made thee whole.
>
And by the way, anyone misleading a child, the
Bible says that it is better that he had a millstone
hung around his neck and he were cast to the
bottom of the sea, than what will happen to him
in judgment for trying to mislead a child. And by
the way, if you think that you teaching them to
be free of religion is helping them, then you are
not helping them, and you choosing for them.

>
> By education most have been misled,
> So they believe because they were so bred;
>

No. In the Christian faith no one chooses for
you. You have to make the decision yourself
to put your trust in the Lord and follow him.
There are cults that look like Christianity that
force people to surrender, but they are false.

>
> The priest continues what the nurse began,
> And thus the child imposes on the man.
>

> Dryden?-
>
Yes, John Dryden. I must admit, though, that
I had to look it up. : )
>
Suzanne

[Toni Keskitalo]

That's what happened to Goofy! The story was in the Finnish Donald Duck
comic magazine in the 70s. He and Mickey heard Mickey's radio amateur
pal calling for help.

Toni

[Mike Lyle]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:25:41 GMT, walksalone
<spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
[...]

>
>walksalone who recalls one of the more plesant chores was helping
>children discover they could learn new things as well as question what
>they thought, & sometiomes did, know.
>
>By education most have been misled,
>So they believe because they were so bred;
>The priest continues what the nurse began,
>And thus the child imposes on the man.
>
>Dryden?

Yes. But I wish it had been Pope.

--
Mike.

[walksalone]

Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:gutke71popc4icod3...@4ax.com:

Well, at least I don't have to ask anymore. For that, thanks.

walksalone whose appreciation of poetry was destroyed after reading the
AncientMmariner. Now it's limited to such lyrics as the Drunken Sailor &
other less socially accepted works.

The villa's and the chapel's where
I learned with little labor
The way to love my fellow man
And hate my next-door neighbor.
[G. K. Chesterton]

[deadrat]

Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 15, 5:25 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:

>> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:0bcb5cab-a1a6-4116-

<snip/>

>> Just as I appreciate those that help me diminish my reserve of
>> ignoraance.  It is no fault of mine that you meander like an ancioent
>> river in your postings.

The Meander River is still around, and it still does. It's in Turkey

It is no fault of mine that you present poorly
>> thought out attempts to impress yourself.  Uhm, or do you think you are
>> impresing others.  No matter.

And may I point out that we can't know why Suzanne posts the nonsense she
does? She may be trying to impress others or herself or both.

Or neither.

> Suzanne
>
>

[walksalone]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:23AAA521-44E4-46BE-BE85-864E43126ACD%a...@b.com:

> Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 15, 5:25 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>>> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:0bcb5cab-a1a6-4116-
>
> <snip/>
>>> Just as I appreciate those that help me diminish my reserve of
>>> ignoraance.  It is no fault of mine that you meander like an
>>> ancioent river in your postings.
>
> The Meander River is still around, and it still does. It's in Turkey

Nice touch of humor there. However, the reference was to the
configuration of rivers of great antiquity once they leave the high
country. Such as the Nile, and the Mississippi as a minor example. It is
a feature of ancient river beds.

> It is no fault of mine that you present poorly
>>> thought out attempts to impress yourself.  Uhm, or do you think you
>>> are impresing others.  No matter.
>
> And may I point out that we can't know why Suzanne posts the nonsense

An old military maxim. No one puts much effort into anything without some
variety of gain for themselves. It can be as little as a look at me
effort, or as major as trying to convince someone to follow your lead.
Given the inadequacy of her postings, and presuming she's anything but
stupid, what not left with a lot of options.
It can be the satisfaction of a job well done, it can be the satisfaction
of learning something. But collectively speaking, which all what one can
go by on usenet, the majority people start threads to impress others.
Some start threads to learn how but not the majority, and it's based on
the language they use and the direction if any of their thinking.

> she does? She may be trying to impress others or herself or both.

Or her preacher, or her children, or maybe her gods. This seems to be a
common theme with the more rabid members of the fractured fairytale
brigade. Can I be wrong, of course. Am I, probably not. Not guaranteed me
I'll just probably. It's based on the evidence she has left behind, her
original and follow-up postings on matters of history, etymology, and
general knowledge apparently.

> Or neither.

Indeed, or it could be all of the above. Very rarely is it a black-and-
white situation for anyone. But there is no sense in adding complexity
when it is required. Yes, on occasion Occam's razor can be applied to
people as well. There many things I don't believe she is based on her
postings, there are some things I have include as probable but not
likely. Yet

Now, if you are done, I feel no compulsion to continue this. It's not
that you don't have a point to make, but you have made it before. And if
you don't kick a dead mud rat, it won't stink. We all are human, but with
the passage of the years, my tolerance, shall we say, has diminished. I
don't particularly like that, but in her case, I see no reason to grant
her tolerance she has not earned. Your mileage of course will very.

walksalone who when he had first encountered Suzanne way back when, was
under the impression he had encountered in newly. So much for first
impressions always being accurate.


"Give wisdom and understanding to my leaders. Protect my warriors and
bring them back safe. Give to the young, love and contentment. Give
health and long life to my old people so that they may remain with us
for a long time. Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I
will not be ashamed. And give me wisdom so that I may have kindness for
all. And let me live each day, so when day is done, my prayer will not
have been in vain."

Big Lodge Pole, Blackfeet

[jillery]

What is this special relationship between you and Suzanne? ISTM you
use her posts to criticize others of what you do yourself.

[Burkhard]

On Dec 15, 11:25 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:

Or as Larkin out a bit more colourfully:

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.

[John S. Wilkins]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Man hands on misery to man.
> It deepens like a coastal shelf.

Except that coastal shelves are, by definition, shallow...
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[walksalone]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in
news:d6a2421d-7aac-4289...@p9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

> On Dec 15, 11:25 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote

>> innews:0bcb5cab-a1a6-4116-a743-8320c06183f8

>>@d17g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

>> > On Dec 11, 11:13 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>> >> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:4906aa6e-535c-4aff-9aa3-
>> >> 12173da65...@p14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:

Snip

> Or as Larkin out a bit more colourfully:
>
> They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
> They may not mean to, but they do.
> They fill you with the faults they had
> And add some extra, just for you.
>
> But they were fucked up in their turn
> By fools in old-style hats and coats,
> Who half the time were soppy-stern
> And half at one another's throats.
>
> Man hands on misery to man.
> It deepens like a coastal shelf.
> Get out as early as you can,
> And don't have any kids yourself.

I do believe I can qualify the above is good poetry and possibly with the
exception of having any kids of your own, good advice.

Walksalone who does realize that the journey of life is from the cradle
to the grave but what makes it interesting is what we do in between. Now,
it's each relation of the mileage just was without the aches and pains,
it would be a lot more fun.

A LITTLE BOY LOST
Nought loves another as itself,
Nor venerates another so,
Nor is it possible to thought
A greater than itself to know:

And Father, how can I love you
Or any of my brothers more?
I love you like the little bird
That picks up crumbs around the door.

The Priest sat by and heard the child,
In trembling zeal he seiz'd his hair:
He led him by his little coat,
And all admir'd the priestly care.

And standing on the altar high,
Lo! what a fiend is here! said he,
One who sets reason up for judge
Of our most holy Mystery.

The weeping child could not be heard,
The weeping parents were in vain;
They strip'd him to his little shirt,
And bound him in an iron chain;

And burn'd him in a holy place,
Where many had been burn'd before:
The weeping parents wept in vain.
Are such things done on Albion's shore? / england's
[William Blake, from Songs of Experience ]

[walksalone]

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote in news:1kceaqo.gj8kk98oy4hsN%
jo...@wilkins.id.au:

> Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Man hands on misery to man.
>> It deepens like a coastal shelf.
>
> Except that coastal shelves are, by definition, shallow...

Well yes, compared to the Marianna thinks they are. But if I recall
correctly, and I just might, continental shelves taper and drastically drop
off. Rule of thumb for me is, if it's water and over my head, is no longer
shallow.

walksalone who used to be very ignorant about geology, & still is no great
shakes at it. But one step at a time is all I can take.

As the caterpiller chooses the fairest leaves to lay her eggs
on, so the priest lays his curse on the fairest joys.
[William Blake, from Proverbs of Hell ]

[walksalone]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:98gme75bmpm2vv19p...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:51:41 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 15, 5:25 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>>>> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:0bcb5cab-a1a6-4116-

snip

> What is this special relationship between you and Suzanne? ISTM you
> use her posts to criticize others of what you do yourself.

There is a possibility that that is occurring, but if so I would prefer
to have an example to compare with what I am thinking versus what I am
writing.
The one thing I can tell you that I am aware of, during my years of
military service I had to be considerate of those that were blithely
ignorant of what they spoke of. I didn't like it then, nor was I in a
position to do anything about it because the majority of them would
outrank me. I'm no longer on active duty but I'm still politically
incorrect.

One of the differences between Suzanne and myself, I will provide
references that do not depend on circular argumentation, presumed
conclusions, but she simply give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Here is a minor example, her claim they now felt was a one-time tropical
and approximately -3500 Gregorian. I doubt she can tell you how a delta
forms, I sincerely doubt she can tell you much of anything about a delta
environment which is dependent upon how it forms. As well as where of
course.
Yes, I am aware in general how a delta forms and am also aware of would
find out more information if necessary. I have never seen Suzanne, in any
newsgroup, be able to do anything about nature. I keep my kid gloves for
children. I keep my respect for those who have earned it.
But gratuitous ignorance presented with the anticipation that others will
blithely accept it without bothering to think about it is something I
have little tolerance for. Especially when it comes to mythology. You are
entitled to yours if any, and no one has the right to attempt to change
your mind about it. Any way, shape, form or fashion. This differently
includes me.

Now, back to your question. Do you have specifics or is this just a
general comment?

If you have specifics, please include the message number so I can find it
on my computer and see if I can reform my thinking when I responded. I
will get to it just as quickly as I can right now, things that interest
me so just meters from Mars have got to wait until at least the early
part of January.

walksalone who can well perceive the possibility that others think
Suzanne holds a status she does not wear I'm concerned. After all, we are
all human and will attribute to others that they will deny to ourselves
our goals that we hold in high esteem. And in my particular corner of the
universe, small as it may be, I am the most important person that ever
existed. Hopefully, this is true for others as well. But the importers
does not allow me to give me permission to pretend that others need to
think as I do.

If he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword holds true,
then jesus the carpenter met his end properly. After all, he
was nailed to a piece of wood, wasn't he?

[Suzanne]

On Dec 11, 11:49 am, Ernest Major <...{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <jc2ok5$86...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mark Isaak

> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> writes>On 12/10/11 5:30 PM, Suzanne wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >> Someone that might know, please explain to me how
> >> water around an island and near to a mainland can
> >> be wrmer than the mainland. I have never looked that
> >> up. Anyone know?
>
> >I can guess.  On mainlaind: sun warms land; land warms air; air rises;
> >cooler air comes in.
> >In shallow water: sun warms land; land warms water; water does not
> >rise, stays where it is.
>

> This situation is commonly a result of thermal inertia. Water bodies
> change temperature less rapidly that land. In the British Isles, for
> example, during the winter months the sea temperature is greater than
> the temperature of the adjacent land. I was taught that this was due to
> water having a higher heat capacity (per unit volume). While this is
> true, the fact that water is mixed to a certain depth, while transport
> of heat in to and out of soil is slow, meaning that a greater effective
> mass per unit area is involved in exchange of heat with space in the
> case of water bodies, might be more important.
>
> The delivery of warm water by the North Atlantic Drift also contributes,
> with the resulting presence of several "sub-tropical" gardens on the
> west coast of Scotland (e.g. Logan, Inverewe).
> --
> alias Ernest Major
>
Good explanation...
It makes sense that the transfer of heat in water and the transfer of
heat in soil is different. Something came
into my mind I'd like to add to it, but I am not sure of
how to word what the thought was. I hope I don't say it
wrong....
>
Let's see....there are a few things retaining temperature.
1. the island
2. the water
a.. salt water
b. fresh water
3. the floor of a body of water
4. the air
5. the special currents such as the warm Gulf Stream
-----
Would the fact that the sea is constantly moving (so is the air of
course) make any difference as to whether or not it would freeze on an
island that is in the sea,
near the mainland? Let's say that the wind is 30 degrees and not any
colder. Would it freeze on an island in the Atlantic with a cold front
being 30 degrees,
just a few degrees below freezing?
>
Suzanne

[deadrat]

walksalone <spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:

> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
> news:23AAA521-44E4-46BE-BE85-864E43126ACD%a...@b.com:
>
>> Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 15, 5:25 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>>>> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:0bcb5cab-a1a6-4116-
>>
>> <snip/>
>>>> Just as I appreciate those that help me diminish my reserve of
>>>> ignoraance.  It is no fault of mine that you meander like an
>>>> ancioent river in your postings.
>>
>> The Meander River is still around, and it still does. It's in Turkey
>
> Nice touch of humor there.

Thanks.

> However, the reference was to the
> configuration of rivers of great antiquity once they leave the high
> country. Such as the Nile, and the Mississippi as a minor example. It is
> a feature of ancient river beds.

Too bad that touch was wasted on you, eh?

>> It is no fault of mine that you present poorly
>>>> thought out attempts to impress yourself.  Uhm, or do you think you
>>>> are impresing others.  No matter.
>>
>> And may I point out that we can't know why Suzanne posts the nonsense
>
> An old military maxim. No one puts much effort into anything without some
> variety of gain for themselves.

<snip>
Some guesses
</snip>

<snip/>

>
> Now, if you are done,

Ha! Good one. Read any of my posts recently?

> I feel no compulsion to continue this.

I'll have to take your word for that.

> It's not
> that you don't have a point to make, but you have made it before.

It doesn't seem to have much effect, does it?

> And if
> you don't kick a dead mud rat, it won't stink. We all are human, but with
> the passage of the years, my tolerance, shall we say, has diminished. I
> don't particularly like that, but in her case, I see no reason to grant
> her tolerance she has not earned. Your mileage of course will very.

Of course. I am merely an advocate for the discipline of rationality.
<snip/>

[deadrat]

I have no relationship whatsoever with Suzanne. Of course, you'll have to
take my word for it that she's no more to me than a series of posts. It's
just that Suzanne's incessant blather tends to attract hostile speculation
about Suzanne.

> ISTM you use her posts to criticize others of what you do yourself.

Oh, deja vu! Lots of things seem to you, don't they? I may be the most
reprehensible poster on this newsgroup, but you won't find me guessing at the
intent and motivations of the people I respond to.

[Suzanne]

On Dec 15, 11:51 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

I suppose that since you have so many either ors, or
neither nors about my motives, that I must then
be a complete mystery. I'm sorry, I'm not
trying to be. I'd rather be a
musterion. At least with the passing of time, they
take on meaning as time unfolds.
>
>
Suzanne

[Suzanne]

On Dec 16, 8:54 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote innews:98gme75bmpm2vv19p...@4ax.com:

>
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:51:41 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>

Walksalone, will you please explain something, seriously?
You speak in a poetic manner, and you use words that
show a high degree of intelligence, but your sentences
tend to wander and I don't mean it as an insult, but they
are not well formed. You seem to be a master of subtlety,
but not a master of speaking clearly. You are so clear
when you are being subtle, but so unclear when you speak
straight.
>
Suzanne
>

[Mike Lyle]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:00:09 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

>Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Man hands on misery to man.
>> It deepens like a coastal shelf.
>
>Except that coastal shelves are, by definition, shallow...

It's one of the untrumpeted miseries of our age that the standard of
our poetry allows us to believe that Larkin wasn't shallow, too.

--
Mike.

[John S. Wilkins]

So it's *not* just me? Phew.

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:47:21 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:51:41 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 15, 5:25 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>>>>> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:0bcb5cab-a1a6-4116-
>>>
>>><snip/>
>>>>> Just as I appreciate those that help me diminish my reserve of
>>>>> ignoraance.  It is no fault of mine that you meander like an ancioent
>>>>> river in your postings.
>>>
>>>The Meander River is still around, and it still does. It's in Turkey
>>>
>>>It is no fault of mine that you present poorly
>>>>> thought out attempts to impress yourself.  Uhm, or do you think you are
>>>>> impresing others.  No matter.
>>>
>>>And may I point out that we can't know why Suzanne posts the nonsense she
>>>does? She may be trying to impress others or herself or both.
>>>
>>>Or neither.
>>
>>
>>
>> What is this special relationship between you and Suzanne?
>
>I have no relationship whatsoever with Suzanne. Of course, you'll have to
>take my word for it that she's no more to me than a series of posts. It's
>just that Suzanne's incessant blather tends to attract hostile speculation
>about Suzanne.
>
>> ISTM you use her posts to criticize others of what you do yourself.
>
>Oh, deja vu! Lots of things seem to you, don't they?

You object to my use of the word "seem"? How unseemly.

>I may be the most
>reprehensible poster on this newsgroup,

You may be, but even if you are, I didn't even imply it. And when I
don't object to you sticking that label on yourself, try not to
speculate about my intent and/or motivations.

>but you won't find me guessing at the
>intent and motivations of the people I respond to.

Of course, your hostile speculation about Suzanne trying to impress
others doesn't qualify. Got it.

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:54:44 GMT, walksalone
<spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:98gme75bmpm2vv19p...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:51:41 -0600, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 15, 5:25 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>>>>> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:0bcb5cab-a1a6-4116-

><snip/>
>>> Just as I appreciate those that help me diminish my reserve of
>>> ignoraance.  It is no fault of mine that you meander like an ancioent
>>> river in your postings.
>
>The Meander River is still around, and it still does. It's in Turkey
>
>It is no fault of mine that you present poorly
>>> thought out attempts to impress yourself.  Uhm, or do you think you are
>>> impresing others.  No matter.
>
>And may I point out that we can't know why Suzanne posts the nonsense she
>does? She may be trying to impress others or herself or both.
>
>Or neither.

>snip


The above snip may have contributed to the confusion. I restore for
clarity what was snipped for no obvious purpose.

>> What is this special relationship between you and Suzanne? ISTM you
>> use her posts to criticize others of what you do yourself.

<snip to focus>

>Now, back to your question. Do you have specifics or is this just a
>general comment?

Perhaps walksalone now understands that my question above was not
directed to him.

[deadrat]

I have no objection to your usage. This is just something else in your head.

>
>>I may be the most
>>reprehensible poster on this newsgroup,
>
>
> You may be, but even if you are, I didn't even imply it. And when I
> don't object to you sticking that label on yourself, try not to
> speculate about my intent and/or motivations.

You can be sure of that, or at least that if I do, I won't post about it.

>>but you won't find me guessing at the
>>intent and motivations of the people I respond to.

> Of course, your hostile speculation about Suzanne trying to impress
> others doesn't qualify. Got it.

Here's what I said to walksalone about Suzanne

<quote>

And may I point out that we can't know why Suzanne posts the nonsense she  
does?  She may be trying to impress others or herself or both. 
 
Or neither. 

</quote>


Read it carefully. We can't know why Suzanne posts. Of course, it *could* be
an attempt to impress someone. But then again, it could be that she doesn't
wish to impress anyone all. The conclusion: it's best not speculate on her
motives.

walksalone politely told me to fuck off. He thinks he might be wrong, but
probably not since in his words, "the majority of people start threads to
impress others." I don't know how he knows this, except that it's
"collectively."

The speculation is his, not mine. Whether he's hostile or not, I can't tell.

Are you even reading my posts before you respond?