Hindus & Buddhists have temples, Jews have Synagogues. schules,
some museums and community centers, Muslims have mosques and schools, >Shintoist have shrines as do other animistic religions, Catholics,
Orthodox,
Epicopalians and Anglicans have not only churches but Cathedrals.
Edifice comples satisfied i guess.
On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 14:58:59 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
Hindus & Buddhists have temples, Jews have Synagogues. schules,
some museums and community centers, Muslims have mosques and schools, >>Shintoist have shrines as do other animistic religions, Catholics, >>Orthodox,
Epicopalians and Anglicans have not only churches but Cathedrals.
Edifice comples satisfied i guess.
Yes, but Christian Scientists have reading rooms!
That always sounded cozy and pleasant to me as a child until I realized the >available reading material was quite limited.
--scott
On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 14:58:59 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
Hindus & Buddhists have temples, Jews have Synagogues. schules,
some museums and community centers, Muslims have mosques and schools,
Shintoist have shrines as do other animistic religions, Catholics,
Orthodox,
Epicopalians and Anglicans have not only churches but Cathedrals.
Edifice comples satisfied i guess.
Yes, but Christian Scientists have reading rooms!
That always sounded cozy and pleasant to me as a child until I realized the available reading material was quite limited.
--scott
Paul S Person wrote:try
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 18:21:37 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
I like the Cathars. To be a Perfect you must not eat meat, commit
violence, or have sex. But if you fail in this, no problem, you can
Cathars,again in the next life. You only have to succeed once. Thus
unlike Marcionites, could have children.
And you can drink wine.
Quite civilized. No wonder they were exterminated.
Didn't invading castles and cathedrals, slaughtering the
nobility/bishops and carrying off the loot have an impact
Or was that some other group?
That sounds like the Catholics, except that the Cathars had no bishops
or cathedrals.
While the pope's motivation was to wipe out the Cathars, the actual >crusaders were after land. The local nobility was quite tolerant of the
Cathars, remiss in their "duty" to persecute them, and thus had to be >replaced by better Catholics. From the north of France.
The wars were thus fought mainly between Catholics, with non-Perfect
Cathars participating, especially in the defense of their strongholds.
Donatists believed that the validity of a ministerial act depended on
the personal morality of the officiant.
IOW, if a bishop who ran away during the persecutions under Julian the
Apostate baptized or confirmed you, those acts were invalid because
those bishops abandoned their flocks.
It dates back to the persecution of Decius in 251, the first empire-wide
persecution and somewhat different from others. Everyone in the empire >other than the Jews had to make a sacrifice to a pagan god. The
sacrificial material (a pinch of dried meat or incense, IIRC) was
provided. Those who made the sacrifice were good for another year.
The condemned were those priests and bishops who gave in and sacrificed.
Donatists considered that this act cost them their status within the
church (though not irrevocably, at least to some, if they repented), and
thus any priest consecrated by such a bishop was not really a priest,
and so on down the generations.
I think that a bishop who hid from persecution would not lose his status
in their eyes. It's hard to imagine that many Donatist bishops would
have survived Decius if they neither caved nor hid (one could also
purchase a forged certificate claiming that one had sacrificed, but this
was also a sin).
muchThe other orthodox rejected this, claiming that personal morality had
no effect on the validity of the act.
Far too many had caved in for the Donatist view to win out. Believers
who had themselves made homage to a pagan god probably wanted to forget
the whole episode. Power wins over purity.
It was decades before northern France even helped southern France,
getsof which remained under Muslim control until 759. Charles Martel
far too much credit for stopping the Muslim invasion.
759 is, indeed, 26 years after 732. So "2.6 decades" is correct.
The first invasion of Southern France by Muslims was in 711. It was
halted for a time by Duke Odo of Aquitaine, who won a decisive victory
at the battle of Toulouse in 721. With no help from Charles.
It was, on the contrary, Charles Martel who sacked Aquitaine, twice,
about 731. Odo had allied himself with a Muslim Berber who was himself
at odds with the Umayyad expansionists, and this was the pretext Charles
used. Probably said he was antifa, too.
Despite this rather nasty behavior on Charles' part, Odo joined him at
the battle of Tours, Odo's forces flanking the Muslims and attacking
from the rear. Odo soon retired to a monastery and I'm sure Charles had
nothing to do with it.
Contrary to high school history books, the threat was far from over
after the battle of Tours. The Umayyad forces continued to expand in >Southern France, not least because the locals feared them less than they
feared the Northern French. Martel had to ally with the Lombards to
kick them out, convincing the Lombards by the argument that if Provence >fell, they'd be next.
So yes, Charles played a major role, though he spent as much time
attacking the French as the Muslims. Odo also played a role, arguably
as large a one, as did Liutprand of the Lombards (who gets no credit, >doubtless for not being French).
What Charles wanted was control of southern France. His behaviour
strongly implies that whether he took it from Muslims, his fellow
French, or Goths, was of little interest to him. But he was practical >enough not to bite off more than he could chew, and left the final work
to his son, who conquered the Muslim state of Narbonne.
He also kept good relations with the Lombards. Never know when you
might need them again.
comparison.But in the 8th Century, that was pretty fast work, given all the other
stuff that needed to be done. It took Napoleon how many years to
consolidate Europe to the point that he felt ready to invade Russia?
A couple of years at most. But I don't see the validity of this
Perhaps they did, but I've heard no evidence of this.
I don't think it would have been an important point. There was no
standard Luke, and there were possibly versions which differ more from >today's even than Marcion's. Quite probably few of Marcion's critics
would even have seen a copy of his Luke. How many would there have been
in Marcion's lifetime? How many available to outsiders?
Marcion's theology was so far from acceptable to people like Tertullian
that criticizing his version of Luke would be like criticizing Hitler
for the Beer Hall Putsch. Sure, that is done from time to time, but it
gets lost in his other crimes.
The account mentions Henry VIII's animosity. I don't know if this was
a factor at the time, but at one point Luther refused to sanction
Henry's "discard the current wife and marry someone else" policy. So,
in the long run, England ended up with the Church of England (which
imbibed rather a lot of Calvinism, depending on whether a member was
"high church" or "low church") rather than a Lutheran church.
In my case, both intra-ocular lenses produced astigmatism, so going
without glasses was never an option.
Not that I would have, having worn them since at least the 6th grade.=20
In 1522, when Henry was still married to Catherine, Luther published a >response to Henry (and Wolsey')s defense of Catholicism called "Against >Henry, King of the English". In this he called Henry a "Wretched >scribbler", and "Pig, dolt and liar", which pretty much burned that
bridge. Whatever he said about the marriages wouldn't change much.
More was even more scabrous in his writings on Luther. Usnet did not
invent flame wars.
And you can drink wine.
On Sat, 04 Oct 2025 09:24:08 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
In my case, both intra-ocular lenses produced astigmatism, so goingIn my case it was October of my grade 1 year when my teacher called my
without glasses was never an option.
Not that I would have, having worn them since at least the 6th grade.=20
mother and advised her to get my eyes checked.
Fortunate for me since I was a tall 6 year old (and in most grade 1
classes that means "seated at the back of the classroom") who was VERY
good at verbal questions but having a tough time with the blackboard
even those a strong reader (I started reading just before my 5th
birthday) With glasses I had no problems and did well in school
thereafter.
And you can drink wine.
So what was the typical alcohol %age of wine in those days? It clearly
wasn't zero (as some have argued) since St Paul says "do not be drunk
with wine..." but I'm sure it wasn't 11-15% as is typical today.
On 2025-10-06, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
And you can drink wine.
So what was the typical alcohol %age of wine in those days? It clearly
wasn't zero (as some have argued) since St Paul says "do not be drunk
with wine..." but I'm sure it wasn't 11-15% as is typical today.
Where does your certainty come from?
Natural fermentation results in usually dry wines with high alcohol
content, i.e., fermentation only stops once all the sugar has been
used up or the alcohol content has become toxic to the yeast.
However, mixing wine with water for consumption was also common for
this reason--and still is in Italy, or at least was some 35 years
ago, if I remember correctly from my student exchange.
There is currently some interest in "natural wines" made in the pre-Pasteur manner and they are different and extremely variable quality. I don't know how an 18th century wine is different from a first century wine but I would like to find out.
And just what IS Falernian wine?
--scott
Falernian was a strong white wine popular in the classical Roman period, produced from Aglianico grapes on > the slopes of Mount Falernus near the border of Latium and Campania. Wikipedia
˙˙˙˙Mr.Dorsey don't you ever do web searches?
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 17:32:34 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
In 1522, when Henry was still married to Catherine, Luther published a >>response to Henry (and Wolsey')s defense of Catholicism called "Against
Henry, King of the English". In this he called Henry a "Wretched >>scribbler", and "Pig, dolt and liar", which pretty much burned that >>bridge. Whatever he said about the marriages wouldn't change much.
Didn't Luther say something to the effect that for Kings at least
polygamy was better than divorce?
--More was even more scabrous in his writings on Luther. Usnet did not >>invent flame wars.
Neither did Luther and More (and many others - I've read what Zwingli
though of Luther...)
On Sat, 04 Oct 2025 08:55:21 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
The account mentions Henry VIII's animosity. I don't know if this was
a factor at the time, but at one point Luther refused to sanction
Henry's "discard the current wife and marry someone else" policy. So,
in the long run, England ended up with the Church of England (which
imbibed rather a lot of Calvinism, depending on whether a member was
"high church" or "low church") rather than a Lutheran church.
Was that in Tudor times or later under the Stuarts? I ask because
obviously the English had a lot more contact with the Scots after 1603
and pre-1603 there were of course more Calvinists in Scotland than
England.
While I am a former Anglican I never heard any discussion of Calvinism
in our congregation (though after our Anglican diocese went heavily
woke many left with some moving to Presbyterian congregations) though
after being forced to resign by our bishop our priest eventually ended
up leading a congregation in Switzerland (where his wife was from)
where presumably he's in line with their theology.
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 18:19:47 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>been
wrote:
Perhaps they did, but I've heard no evidence of this.
I don't think it would have been an important point. There was no >>standard Luke, and there were possibly versions which differ more from >>today's even than Marcion's. Quite probably few of Marcion's critics >>would even have seen a copy of his Luke. How many would there have
in Marcion's lifetime? How many available to outsiders?
Marcion's theology was so far from acceptable to people like Tertullian
that criticizing his version of Luke would be like criticizing Hitler
for the Beer Hall Putsch. Sure, that is done from time to time, but it
gets lost in his other crimes.
Mike Wingerl's video (which I referred to in my previous posting but >mistakenly said it was Sean McDowell's) said that there were 15-20+
early Greek manuscripts most editors were working from and that
they're inconsistent on things like the "long ending" of Mark (Mark
16:9-20) where some manuscripts include this section and others don't
and that there's no consistent pattern between age of the manuscript
and whether it appears in a particular manuscript.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJilpQsl4vc
Given Hitler's later activities I doubt too many people bother to
include the Beer Hall Putsch in it though several people DO emphasize
his killing of Ernst Roehm (early leader of the SA) in his list of
crimes presumably because it gives clear evidence of Hitler's view of
gays.
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 18:21:37 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
And you can drink wine.
So what was the typical alcohol %age of wine in those days? It clearly
wasn't zero (as some have argued) since St Paul says "do not be drunk
with wine..." but I'm sure it wasn't 11-15% as is typical today.
In article <5j28ek9rqntltlibteell2llkmfdg5o89h@4ax.com>,grade.=20
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2025 09:24:08 -0700, Paul S Person >><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
In my case, both intra-ocular lenses produced astigmatism, so going >>>without glasses was never an option.
Not that I would have, having worn them since at least the 6th
In my case it was October of my grade 1 year when my teacher called my >>mother and advised her to get my eyes checked.
Fortunate for me since I was a tall 6 year old (and in most grade 1
classes that means "seated at the back of the classroom") who was VERY
good at verbal questions but having a tough time with the blackboard
even those a strong reader (I started reading just before my 5th
birthday) With glasses I had no problems and did well in school
thereafter.
In grade one and two, the luck of the seating draw by surname
put me at the back of a middle row. Until I got my glasses towards
the end of grade two, I had no idea there was stuff on the blackboard.
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 17:32:34 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
In 1522, when Henry was still married to Catherine, Luther published a
response to Henry (and Wolsey')s defense of Catholicism called "Against
Henry, King of the English". In this he called Henry a "Wretched
scribbler", and "Pig, dolt and liar", which pretty much burned that
bridge. Whatever he said about the marriages wouldn't change much.
Didn't Luther say something to the effect that for Kings at least
polygamy was better than divorce?
More was even more scabrous in his writings on Luther. Usnet did not
invent flame wars.
Neither did Luther and More (and many others - I've read what Zwingli
though of Luther...)
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 17:49:43 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
I read an article in a military history magazine yesterday on the
Albigensian Crusade. It may be helpful to cite a few items:
1. At this period, at least, sacking castles etc is either a slander
or something that no longer occurred, as there is no mention of this
in the article, as there surely would be when the reasons for the
crusade are discussed.
2. The first to style himself King of France (as opposed to King of
the Franks) was Phillip II in 1180. Charles Martel could not and did
not add anything to France, because France did not exist in his day.
3. "By the 1170s, the sect [Cathar] had self-organized into dioceses
with their own bishops and deacons who acted as parish priests."
Cathedrals are not mentioned. Another discussion suggests that
wherever the bishop was was also a cathedral.
4. The local nobles were vassals of King of Aragon.
5. The local nobles defended their /land/, and so their people.
Actually, one of them, in return for his excommunication being
cancelled, joined the 1209 crusade and attacked his cousin to save his
own lands. For a while.
The wars were thus fought mainly between Catholics, with non-Perfect
Cathars participating, especially in the defense of their strongholds.
Count Raymond VI of Tolouse was Cathar
protect his lands by diverting it to Trenceval. He eventually deserted
the Crusade, resumed his Cathar beliefs, and ... well, it's a typical
story of the time.
It was decades before northern France even helped southern France, much >>>> of which remained under Muslim control until 759. Charles Martel gets >>>> far too much credit for stopping the Muslim invasion.
759 is, indeed, 26 years after 732. So "2.6 decades" is correct.
The first invasion of Southern France by Muslims was in 711. It was
halted for a time by Duke Odo of Aquitaine, who won a decisive victory
at the battle of Toulouse in 721. With no help from Charles.
It was, on the contrary, Charles Martel who sacked Aquitaine, twice,
about 731. Odo had allied himself with a Muslim Berber who was himself
at odds with the Umayyad expansionists, and this was the pretext Charles
used. Probably said he was antifa, too.
Despite this rather nasty behavior on Charles' part, Odo joined him at
the battle of Tours, Odo's forces flanking the Muslims and attacking
from the rear. Odo soon retired to a monastery and I'm sure Charles had
nothing to do with it.
Contrary to high school history books, the threat was far from over
after the battle of Tours. The Umayyad forces continued to expand in
Southern France, not least because the locals feared them less than they
feared the Northern French. Martel had to ally with the Lombards to
kick them out, convincing the Lombards by the argument that if Provence
fell, they'd be next.
A nice summary of the details. But what does it really change? Martel
was in command.
So yes, Charles played a major role, though he spent as much time
attacking the French as the Muslims. Odo also played a role, arguably
as large a one, as did Liutprand of the Lombards (who gets no credit,
doubtless for not being French).
What Charles wanted was control of southern France. His behaviour
strongly implies that whether he took it from Muslims, his fellow
French, or Goths, was of little interest to him. But he was practical
enough not to bite off more than he could chew, and left the final work
to his son, who conquered the Muslim state of Narbonne.
He also kept good relations with the Lombards. Never know when you
might need them again.
Keep in mind that this is a (Iberian) Spanish history of Spain. Taught
by a Castilian Spanish speaker. It may have been a bit ... biased.
It was almost certainly something for younger students in Spain than ourselves. But that's not uncommon in learning a language: books
written for younger people are closer to the learning student's
abilities.
But in the 8th Century, that was pretty fast work, given all the other
stuff that needed to be done. It took Napoleon how many years to
consolidate Europe to the point that he felt ready to invade Russia?
A couple of years at most. But I don't see the validity of this comparison.
A couple of years 10 centuries later.
With some progress in both weaponry and in organizational ability.
Napoleon probably went into winter quarters in the Fall. But he didn't
do it so his troops could go back home and harvest the crops. Martel
(and the later crusaders discussed above) did.
As with the school year in farming regions of the USA in the last
century, so also in the long history of warfare the need to get the
food harvested took precedence and limited the time available.
Napoleon also had a unified country at his back. Martel had a feudal
system, which is less reliable.
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
On 2025-10-06, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
And you can drink wine.
And just what IS Falernian wine?
On 10/6/25 16:13, Scott Dorsey wrote:
There is currently some interest in "natural wines" made in the
pre-Pasteur
manner and they are different and extremely variable quality.˙ I don't
know
how an 18th century wine is different from a first century wine but I
would
like to find out.
And just what IS Falernian wine?
--scott
˙˙˙˙Mr.Dorsey don't you ever do web searches?
Falernian was a strong white wine popular in the classical Roman
period, produced from Aglianico grapes on > the slopes of Mount
Falernus near the border of Latium and Campania. Wikipedia
˙˙˙˙And it is still available in Italy today as Falerno I read
in a note adjacent to my search.
In article <5j28ek9rqntltlibteell2llkmfdg5o89h@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2025 09:24:08 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
In my case, both intra-ocular lenses produced astigmatism, so goingIn my case it was October of my grade 1 year when my teacher called my
without glasses was never an option.
Not that I would have, having worn them since at least the 6th grade.=20 >>>
mother and advised her to get my eyes checked.
Fortunate for me since I was a tall 6 year old (and in most grade 1
classes that means "seated at the back of the classroom") who was VERY
good at verbal questions but having a tough time with the blackboard
even those a strong reader (I started reading just before my 5th
birthday) With glasses I had no problems and did well in school
thereafter.
In grade one and two, the luck of the seating draw by surname
put me at the back of a middle row. Until I got my glasses towards
the end of grade two, I had no idea there was stuff on the blackboard.
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 11:18:36 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 18:19:47 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> >>wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJilpQsl4vc
The RSV ends Mark at 16:8. It's footnotes have what I suppose is the
"long ending" as 16:9--19. It also gives a shorter addition to 16:8.
This is old news to readers of the RSV, at least.
And, no, it doesn't justify some cockamamy theory that Mark was
written in the 3rd century AD!
Given Hitler's later activities I doubt too many people bother to
include the Beer Hall Putsch in it though several people DO emphasize
his killing of Ernst Roehm (early leader of the SA) in his list of
crimes presumably because it gives clear evidence of Hitler's view of
gays.
Well, maybe. The general memory I have of what I have read on this is
that Hitler was concerned about Roehm's ambitions and the number of
troops he had available to pursue them with.
Hegseth might want to watch himself carefully. /He/ has a large number
of troops available as well.
I've been watching /I, Claudius/ a disk a week for the last few weeks
(I expect tol finish up this week), and it had Tiberius removing
Sejanus for much the same reason.
It has occurred to me that the only reason the Roman Empire was not a >totalitarian state is that they simply did not have the technology
required to create one. But they certainly gave it the old college
try!
My problem developed later, but when I found it necessary to stand
three feet from the blackboard and memorize it on my way out after
class ended I realized I had a problem.
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 17:32:34 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
In 1522, when Henry was still married to Catherine, Luther published a
response to Henry (and Wolsey')s defense of Catholicism called "Against
Henry, King of the English". In this he called Henry a "Wretched
scribbler", and "Pig, dolt and liar", which pretty much burned that
bridge. Whatever he said about the marriages wouldn't change much.
Didn't Luther say something to the effect that for Kings at least
polygamy was better than divorce?
I at first thought this could not possibly be true, but you are correct.
Apparently Luther granted permission for a German prince to make a >polygamous marriage. He believed that given the polygamous marriages in
the old testament, such could not be utterly forbidden.
Marcion could have set him straight (As AJP Taylor said, goak here).
As to divorce, I get the impression that he was even more reluctant to
allow it than the Catholic Church.
Alas for Henry, even with Luther's, even with the Pope's support,
neither Catheron nor Anne would have accepted a co-wife.
Pistols at dawn would have been the least of it.
More was even more scabrous in his writings on Luther. Usnet did not
invent flame wars.
Neither did Luther and More (and many others - I've read what Zwingli
though of Luther...)
That was a polite debate compared to More on Luther.
James Nicoll wrote:
In article <5j28ek9rqntltlibteell2llkmfdg5o89h@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat˙ <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2025 09:24:08 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
In my case, both intra-ocular lenses produced astigmatism, so goingIn my case it was October of my grade 1 year when my teacher called my
without glasses was never an option.
Not that I would have, having worn them since at least the 6th
grade.=20
mother and advised her to get my eyes checked.
Fortunate for me since I was a tall 6 year old (and in most grade 1
classes that means "seated at the back of the classroom") who was VERY
good at verbal questions but having a tough time with the blackboard
even those a strong reader (I started reading just before my 5th
birthday) With glasses I had no problems and did well in school
thereafter.
In grade one and two, the luck of the seating draw by surname
put me at the back of a middle row. Until I got my glasses towards
the end of grade two, I had no idea there was stuff on the blackboard.
I was lucky, and got glasses in grade one.˙ I could see that there was something on the blackboard.˙ Perhaps I mentioned that what was on the
board didn't look anything like what was in my book.
The past is a strange place indeed.
William Hyde
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 08:43:59 -0700, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
My problem developed later, but when I found it necessary to stand
three feet from the blackboard and memorize it on my way out after
class ended I realized I had a problem.
Again I consider myself VERY fortunate to have had my grade 1 teacher
phone my mother on this subject within 3-6 weeks of my beginning grade
1.
I have described this scenario to several university students training
to become elementary teachers and only about half asked if the
solution was eyesight related. It's been a long time since I was in
first grade and was sorry to hear that grade school teacher's training
didn't routinely teach that to student teachers.
My life would have been completely different had my eyesight issues
not be "caught" as early as they were.
On 10/7/25 16:19, William Hyde wrote:
James Nicoll wrote:˙˙˙˙It certain was strange but had some very nice inhabitants.˙ It also
In article <5j28ek9rqntltlibteell2llkmfdg5o89h@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat˙ <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2025 09:24:08 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
In my case, both intra-ocular lenses produced astigmatism, so goingIn my case it was October of my grade 1 year when my teacher called my >>>> mother and advised her to get my eyes checked.
without glasses was never an option.
Not that I would have, having worn them since at least the 6th
grade.=20
Fortunate for me since I was a tall 6 year old (and in most grade 1
classes that means "seated at the back of the classroom") who was VERY >>>> good at verbal questions but having a tough time with the blackboard
even those a strong reader (I started reading just before my 5th
birthday) With glasses I had no problems and did well in school
thereafter.
In grade one and two, the luck of the seating draw by surname
put me at the back of a middle row. Until I got my glasses towards
the end of grade two, I had no idea there was stuff on the blackboard.
I was lucky, and got glasses in grade one.˙ I could see that there was
something on the blackboard.˙ Perhaps I mentioned that what was on the
board didn't look anything like what was in my book.
The past is a strange place indeed.
William Hyde
had people like Adolph Hitler, Father Coughlin, Henry Ford, Joseph Stalin Daryl Gates, Fred Trump and their various crews. Nice folks like FDR and Eleanor, Harry Truman, Dwight David Eisenhower, Earl Warren and
˙Pat Brown, the younger more idealistic Jerry Brown, and a host of other
˙including JFK, Martin Luther KIng, and more I never heard of.
˙Allan Ginsberg, Hemingway, Jack Kerouac, Robert Heinlein, Ray Bradbury,
˙Cordwainer Smith, to name but a few. Oh and much younger me. James
Branch Cabell had completed his long series about Manuel before I was.
Eggar Rice Burroughs with his fantasies from Africa to Mars was pretty
well out of the picture.˙ Tom Swift was not yet jUnior and flew his
Electric Airplane and other fantastic toys.
˙˙˙˙Batman has been freshly invented to take the place of Sherlock
Holmes as Master Dectective as well as acroBatic crime fighter.
Kal-El was so young he could not fly nor did he yet know his
given name but was happy to work as a reporter, with a crush
on Lois Lane. for the mighty newspaper "The Daily Planet'.
During WW II they would be joined by Bullet Man and his companion
a woman, Wonder Woman herself, Hawkman and his girl friend.
Captain America and the Star-Spangled Kid, The Human Torch
who was an Android, Daredevil who was not blind then and
several troups of children all fighting the NAZI and their spies
in our sacred USA and overseas. At the same time in the
real newspapers, we had Mutt & Jeff, Terry and the Pirates,
Flash Gordon, Prince Valiant, the Katzenjammer Kids copied
as the Captain and the Kids, Our Boarding House and others.
Bring Up Father aka Maggie and Jiggs.˙ Oh life was rich if
you could afford a daily paper and we could. We also read
the Saturday Evening Post, Life Magazine, Colliers' and
a few others. I think it was Colliers that printer long
articles on the forth-coming space exploration with
illustrations of orbital space station inspired by Werner
von Braun ideas.
˙˙˙˙We had Amazing Stories, Astounding which became Analog,
Worlds of If, Galaxy and the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction,
still floating around were Startling Stories, Planet Stories and more.
˙˙˙˙It did not have White Christian Nationalism but Isolationism
and its supporters who worked on a plot to overthrow FDR. The old
John Birch Society which insisted that some Democrat had surrendered
China to the Communist Party whereas we never held any title to any
of China.
˙˙˙˙There was no movement to change the laws regarding same sex relationships nor the idea that allowing them the same rights as other Americans would destroy society or harm other peoples sexual
relationships.˙ Transgender would not arrise until teh 1960s when
a book was published called the "Transsexual Phenomena" by an endocrinologist,Harry Benjamin, then it was only a scale of gerder
from normal? thru transgender to the most extreme transsexual.
before that the term "Sex Change" was used to designate the more
public members of the gender dsyphoria crowd.
˙˙˙˙We had the fission bomb and the fusion bomb and lived
in fear of Communist invasion.˙ Movies were made about that
unpleasant possibility.
˙˙˙˙Yes the past was strange and the future, if humanity persists
in its many follies, will be stranger still.˙ I hope humanity itself
persists somehow.
˙˙˙˙bliss
The Horny Goat wrote:a
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 17:32:34 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
In 1522, when Henry was still married to Catherine, Luther published
"Againstresponse to Henry (and Wolsey')s defense of Catholicism called
Henry, King of the English". In this he called Henry a "Wretched
scribbler", and "Pig, dolt and liar", which pretty much burned that
bridge. Whatever he said about the marriages wouldn't change much.
Didn't Luther say something to the effect that for Kings at least
polygamy was better than divorce?
I at first thought this could not possibly be true, but you are correct.
Apparently Luther granted permission for a German prince to make a >polygamous marriage. He believed that given the polygamous marriages in
the old testament, such could not be utterly forbidden.
Marcion could have set him straight (As AJP Taylor said, goak here).
As to divorce, I get the impression that he was even more reluctant to
allow it than the Catholic Church.
Alas for Henry, even with Luther's, even with the Pope's support,
neither Catheron nor Anne would have accepted a co-wife.
Pistols at dawn would have been the least of it.
--More was even more scabrous in his writings on Luther. Usnet did not
invent flame wars.
Neither did Luther and More (and many others - I've read what Zwingli
though of Luther...)
That was a polite debate compared to More on Luther.
William Hyde
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 08:34:54 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 11:18:36 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 18:19:47 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> >>>wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJilpQsl4vc
The RSV ends Mark at 16:8. It's footnotes have what I suppose is the
"long ending" as 16:9--19. It also gives a shorter addition to 16:8.
This is old news to readers of the RSV, at least.
Which is one of the reason I consider the RSV a rather dodgy
translation that being the only major translation of the era (1952)
was adopted by most Protestant denominations that were tired of ye old
1611 King James despite some sections that were sketchy at best.
I personally think the 2001 English Standard Version handled it better
by inserting a paragraph explaining the situation then giving the
"long ending".
Again - there were a dozen or two Greek texts in the late 2nd century
through 5th century some including the "long ending" some not with no
clear trend during that period. After that the Latin texts pretty much
were the standard until the wave of Bible translations done in the
early Protestant Reformation era mostly in English and German.
--And, no, it doesn't justify some cockamamy theory that Mark was
written in the 3rd century AD!
Given Hitler's later activities I doubt too many people bother to
include the Beer Hall Putsch in it though several people DO emphasize
his killing of Ernst Roehm (early leader of the SA) in his list of
crimes presumably because it gives clear evidence of Hitler's view of >>>gays.
Well, maybe. The general memory I have of what I have read on this is
that Hitler was concerned about Roehm's ambitions and the number of
troops he had available to pursue them with.
Hegseth might want to watch himself carefully. /He/ has a large number
of troops available as well.
I've been watching /I, Claudius/ a disk a week for the last few weeks
(I expect tol finish up this week), and it had Tiberius removing
Sejanus for much the same reason.
It has occurred to me that the only reason the Roman Empire was not a >>totalitarian state is that they simply did not have the technology
required to create one. But they certainly gave it the old college
try!
Paul S Person wrote:<snippo here and there>
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 17:49:43 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
I read an article in a military history magazine yesterday on the
Albigensian Crusade. It may be helpful to cite a few items:
2. The first to style himself King of France (as opposed to King of
the Franks) was Phillip II in 1180. Charles Martel could not and did
not add anything to France, because France did not exist in his day.
Here is a good map that illustrates this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel#/media/File:Francia_714.png
Martel of course, claimed the whole as the successor of Clovis and that
all these territories were in fact part of his kingdom (even if he
wasn't technically the king).
Charles may not have been adding these territories to France, but he was
adding them to his personal possessions, and passed on most of what is
now France to his son (who divided it among his sons, but one died early
and the other was Charlemagne).II.
4. The local nobles were vassals of King of Aragon.
It's complex. Raymond VI, for example was in various territories a
vassal of the King of France, Henry II of England, the ruler of Aragon
and the Holy Roman Empire. He was descended from a recent king of
France, related to the King of Aragon, and married a daughter of Henry
And yes, as you mentioned (and I erroneously snipped) at one point the
king of Aragon fought to restore his vassal and relative Raymond's lands
and titles. He obviously took his authority in Languedoc seriously.
strongholds.The wars were thus fought mainly between Catholics, with non-Perfect
Cathars participating, especially in the defense of their
Count Raymond VI of Tolouse was Cathar
I don't believe he was. He was sympathetic, and did not persecute, but
he kept to the Catholic faith.
It was difficult to rule and be a Cathar. Too much violence required.
until he joined the crusade to
protect his lands by diverting it to Trenceval. He eventually deserted
the Crusade, resumed his Cathar beliefs, and ... well, it's a typical
story of the time.
In fact he died in the company of an Abbot, and was cared for by the
Knights of St John. He was never buried, however, and a recent attempt
at lifting his excommunication failed (according to wikipedia - none of
my other sources mention this so ...).
Keep in mind that this is a (Iberian) Spanish history of Spain. Taught
by a Castilian Spanish speaker. It may have been a bit ... biased.
It was almost certainly something for younger students in Spain than
ourselves. But that's not uncommon in learning a language: books
written for younger people are closer to the learning student's
abilities.
Batman has been freshly invented to take the place of Sherlock
Holmes as Master Dectective as well as acroBatic crime fighter.
Kal-El was so young he could not fly nor did he yet know his
given name but was happy to work as a reporter, with a crush
on Lois Lane. for the mighty newspaper "The Daily Planet'.
During WW II they would be joined by Bullet Man and his companion
a woman, Wonder Woman herself, Hawkman and his girl friend.
Captain America and the Star-Spangled Kid, The Human Torch
who was an Android, Daredevil who was not blind then and
several troups of children all fighting the NAZI and their spies
in our sacred USA and overseas. At the same time in the
If we are still talking Henry VIII, I believe Henry was citing aHenry certainly wouldn't have minded though while he was undoubtedly a
statement in the Bible and Luther felt he was doing so incorrectly.
Alas for Henry, even with Luther's, even with the Pope's support,=20 >>neither Catheron nor Anne would have accepted a co-wife.
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 21:27:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 08:34:54 -0700, Paul S Person >><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
The RSV ends Mark at 16:8. It's footnotes have what I suppose is the >>>"long ending" as 16:9--19. It also gives a shorter addition to 16:8.
This is old news to readers of the RSV, at least.
Which is one of the reason I consider the RSV a rather dodgy
translation that being the only major translation of the era (1952)
was adopted by most Protestant denominations that were tired of ye old
1611 King James despite some sections that were sketchy at best.
Which is strange, since the ASV was available from 1901. And the RV
was even earlier.
The RSV was very controversial in some quarters, with little booklets
(and perhaps not so little books) published showing all the Evil
Changes to the KJV.
I personally think the 2001 English Standard Version handled it better
by inserting a paragraph explaining the situation then giving the
"long ending".
The footnote has a brief indication of the problem.
At least a footnote is not likely to be confused with the actual text.
Part of this was a switch in how the original text was to be
determined: Erasmus used "majority rule", but that was replaced by
"oldest is best" supplemented by "hardest to understand is best" (the
theory here being that the less hard to understand versions were
someone's attempt to figure out what the original was actually
saying). This affected the Greek text used, which affected the meaning
of the Greek, which was reflected in the English.
Interestingly, support for this ("textual criticism") is much more
widespread than the "higher criticism". Possibly because it is pretty
clear how manuscripts differ, relative age can be determined up to a
point, and the criteria make sense.
Well, maybe. The general memory I have of what I have read on this is >>>that Hitler was concerned about Roehm's ambitions and the number of >>>troops he had available to pursue them with.
Hegseth might want to watch himself carefully. /He/ has a large number
of troops available as well.
I've been watching /I, Claudius/ a disk a week for the last few weeks
(I expect tol finish up this week), and it had Tiberius removing
Sejanus for much the same reason.
It has occurred to me that the only reason the Roman Empire was not a >>>totalitarian state is that they simply did not have the technology >>>required to create one. But they certainly gave it the old college
try!
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 17:30:36 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 17:32:34 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
In 1522, when Henry was still married to Catherine, Luther published a >>>> response to Henry (and Wolsey')s defense of Catholicism called "Against >>>> Henry, King of the English". In this he called Henry a "Wretched
scribbler", and "Pig, dolt and liar", which pretty much burned that
bridge. Whatever he said about the marriages wouldn't change much.
Didn't Luther say something to the effect that for Kings at least
polygamy was better than divorce?
I at first thought this could not possibly be true, but you are correct.
Apparently Luther granted permission for a German prince to make a
polygamous marriage. He believed that given the polygamous marriages in
the old testament, such could not be utterly forbidden.
That wouldn't have been the Prince-Elector in whose principality he
lived, would it?
As to divorce, I get the impression that he was even more reluctant to
allow it than the Catholic Church.
If we are still talking Henry VIII, I believe Henry was citing a
statement in the Bible and Luther felt he was doing so incorrectly.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 08:59:26 -0700, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
If we are still talking Henry VIII, I believe Henry was citing aHenry certainly wouldn't have minded
statement in the Bible and Luther felt he was doing so incorrectly.
Alas for Henry, even with Luther's, even with the Pope's support,=20
neither Catheron nor Anne would have accepted a co-wife.
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 18:32:15 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
And yes, as you mentioned (and I erroneously snipped) at one point the
king of Aragon fought to restore his vassal and relative Raymond's lands
and titles. He obviously took his authority in Languedoc seriously.
And his responsibility, as their liege lord, to assist/protect them.
Feudal obligations were /mutual/, not just one-way.
He did this because the man the Pope put in charge was behaving very
badly, and he did it under threat of excommunication.
Count Raymond VI of Tolouse was Cathar
I don't believe he was. He was sympathetic, and did not persecute, but
he kept to the Catholic faith.
He was excommunicated for being a Cathar. Per the article, anyway.
It was difficult to rule and be a Cathar. Too much violence required.
Not in a Cathar territory.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 09:11:27 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 21:27:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 08:34:54 -0700, Paul S Person >>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
The RSV ends Mark at 16:8. It's footnotes have what I suppose is the >>>>"long ending" as 16:9--19. It also gives a shorter addition to 16:8. >>>>This is old news to readers of the RSV, at least.
Which is one of the reason I consider the RSV a rather dodgy
translation that being the only major translation of the era (1952)
was adopted by most Protestant denominations that were tired of ye old >>>1611 King James despite some sections that were sketchy at best.
Which is strange, since the ASV was available from 1901. And the RV
was even earlier.
Yup - at one point in his life my father was a seminarian who wanted
to be a US Navy chaplain (unfortunately for him he graduated right at
the end of the Korean war when their ranks were very full with almost
no new ones till the Vietnam era by which time he was working
elsewhere) and he kept his textbooks so I had access to a pretty good
library on this stuff in my teens. So yes I know both the
abbreviations and dates you cite.
The RSV was very controversial in some quarters, with little booklets
(and perhaps not so little books) published showing all the Evil
Changes to the KJV.
No question most evangelicals hated the RSV - but most weren't eager
to go on using the KJV forever.
I personally think the 2001 English Standard Version handled it better
by inserting a paragraph explaining the situation then giving the
"long ending".
The footnote has a brief indication of the problem.
At least a footnote is not likely to be confused with the actual text.
I'd rank the ESV as the best translation since the 1950s.
Part of this was a switch in how the original text was to be
determined: Erasmus used "majority rule", but that was replaced by
"oldest is best" supplemented by "hardest to understand is best" (the >>theory here being that the less hard to understand versions were
someone's attempt to figure out what the original was actually
saying). This affected the Greek text used, which affected the meaning
of the Greek, which was reflected in the English.
One of the things our generation has lost is an interest in Greek and
Latin - and being Canadian the main language taught in the western
portion of the country (where I grew up) was French so while I can
mostly read it I can't follow French language TV or speak it.
Interestingly, support for this ("textual criticism") is much more >>widespread than the "higher criticism". Possibly because it is pretty
clear how manuscripts differ, relative age can be determined up to a
point, and the criteria make sense.
All of which were emphasized in the McDowell video I cited earlier.
numberWell, maybe. The general memory I have of what I have read on this is >>>>that Hitler was concerned about Roehm's ambitions and the number of >>>>troops he had available to pursue them with.
On top of that of course Hitler wanted a German population of 200
millioni + and thus wasn't keen on encouraging those of Roehm's sexual >persuasion.
Hegseth might want to watch himself carefully. /He/ has a large
of troops available as well.
I've been watching /I, Claudius/ a disk a week for the last few weeks >>>>(I expect tol finish up this week), and it had Tiberius removing >>>>Sejanus for much the same reason.
I never really followed I Claudius but know the history of Tiberius
and Sejanus - in the Roman world a victorious general (the best way to
be a popular general) was a potential threat and there were plenty of
Caesars who were removed from 44BC onwards.
It has occurred to me that the only reason the Roman Empire was not a >>>>totalitarian state is that they simply did not have the technology >>>>required to create one. But they certainly gave it the old college
try!
Heh heh - good way of putting it though obviously given the technology
of that age how did a Caesar embrace the ambition of a victorious
general without endangering himself? Even Julius himself marched on
Rome.
Paul S Person wrote:the
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 18:32:15 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
And yes, as you mentioned (and I erroneously snipped) at one point
landsking of Aragon fought to restore his vassal and relative Raymond's
and titles. He obviously took his authority in Languedoc seriously.
And his responsibility, as their liege lord, to assist/protect them.
Feudal obligations were /mutual/, not just one-way.
He did this because the man the Pope put in charge was behaving very
badly, and he did it under threat of excommunication.
De Monfort, Earl of Leicester, was quite ruthless, and his personal
faith inclined to the Dominicans and their desire to extirpate "heresy".
But he was also very keen on grabbing land, though his son lost most of
the gains.
His second son, also Earl of Leicester, tried to become the effective
ruler of England, and to some degree the nature of Parliament is due to
his maneuverings. A better politician than his father, but not as good a
general.but
Count Raymond VI of Tolouse was Cathar
I don't believe he was. He was sympathetic, and did not persecute,
he kept to the Catholic faith.
He was excommunicated for being a Cathar. Per the article, anyway.
I'm sure that was the accusation, and when accusation equals conviction >everyone is guilty. But there is plenty of evidence that he kept to the
Catholic faith, however sympathetic he was to their beliefs, and
reluctant to persecute the peaceful, productive, tax-paying and highly >respected Cathars in his domain.
He did travel in company with a Cathar perfect, doubtless "evidence"
used against him, but he also had his Catholic priests. I used to drink
and talk theology with a professor at the Pontifical Institute forrequired.
Medieval studies, but that didn't make me a Catholic.
It was difficult to rule and be a Cathar. Too much violence
Not in a Cathar territory.
While crusader propaganda claimed a Cathar majority, the Cathars were a >definite minority. However respected their behavior made them, most
people were not prepared to believe in two gods, to think about giving
up meat and sex, and so on.
After the sack of Beziers, the murderers naturally claimed that the vast
majority of those killed were Cathars, and even exaggerated the death
toll to 20,000, but while Beziers had a strong Cathar community, it was >unlikely to have been even half the population, probably much less.
It was always to the benefit of the crusaders to exaggerate the number
of Cathars killed, if only because this implied that they had killed
fewer Catholics.
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 22:04:42 -0700, Bobbie Sellers ><bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Batman has been freshly invented to take the place of Sherlock
Holmes as Master Dectective as well as acroBatic crime fighter.
Kal-El was so young he could not fly nor did he yet know his
given name but was happy to work as a reporter, with a crush
on Lois Lane. for the mighty newspaper "The Daily Planet'.
During WW II they would be joined by Bullet Man and his companion
a woman, Wonder Woman herself, Hawkman and his girl friend.
Captain America and the Star-Spangled Kid, The Human Torch
who was an Android, Daredevil who was not blind then and
several troups of children all fighting the NAZI and their spies
in our sacred USA and overseas. At the same time in the
I'm skeptical of your claim that Superboy didn't understand his powers
till near adulthood since DC Comics debuted Superboy in 1945 (20
second Google search) but generally agree. Of course you're flipping
back and forth between DC and Marvel (as you likely know) and no
question the few 1941-45 reprints I've seen are all very much into
"beating the Nazis" as a front and center theme - I remember the one
were Superman got drafted and in his physical he read the "published
by" line on the eye chart which was 6 pt type at a range of 30'. (At
first they thought he had erred but then checked with a magnifying
class - the things you remember 40 years later!)
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 10:22:14 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 22:04:42 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Batman has been freshly invented to take the place of Sherlock
Holmes as Master Dectective as well as acroBatic crime fighter.
Kal-El was so young he could not fly nor did he yet know his
given name but was happy to work as a reporter, with a crush
on Lois Lane. for the mighty newspaper "The Daily Planet'.
During WW II they would be joined by Bullet Man and his companion
a woman, Wonder Woman herself, Hawkman and his girl friend.
Captain America and the Star-Spangled Kid, The Human Torch
who was an Android, Daredevil who was not blind then and
several troups of children all fighting the NAZI and their spies
in our sacred USA and overseas. At the same time in the
I'm skeptical of your claim that Superboy didn't understand his powers
till near adulthood since DC Comics debuted Superboy in 1945 (20
second Google search) but generally agree. Of course you're flipping
back and forth between DC and Marvel (as you likely know) and no
question the few 1941-45 reprints I've seen are all very much into
"beating the Nazis" as a front and center theme - I remember the one
were Superman got drafted and in his physical he read the "published
by" line on the eye chart which was 6 pt type at a range of 30'. (At
first they thought he had erred but then checked with a magnifying
class - the things you remember 40 years later!)
When I was in BCT in Ft Ord, the story was that draftees from LA were
mostly washing out. Apparently, the LA eye test consisted of the
question "do you see that wall?" and nothing else.
"Look up in the sky, is it a bird? Is it a plane?" "No it is Superman, strange
visitor from another planet."
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 190:28:33 |
| Calls: | 178 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 79,922 |
