http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
rec.arts.books@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Polanski Busted! - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/cdc76ec734f8b93e?hl=en
* Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE) - 11
messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/92153a6882249799?hl=en
* On not having been there - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/5818036fb2153069?hl=en
* gandi's drunkard son pray tell why you turned into a muslim - 3 messages, 3
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/9bb1fe5a4b197d00?hl=en
* fs/ HOWARD PYLE'S BOOK OF PIRATES, First Edition, 1921 - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/03ff8e1ece3c57b2?hl=en
* fs/ DUMAS' THE THREE MUSKETEERS - First Edition, 1894 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/b77f2407e1fcbea1?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Polanski Busted!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/cdc76ec734f8b93e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 12:06 am
From: Just Me
On Sep 27, 11:10 pm, Patok <crazy.div.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just Me wrote:
> > Much as many of us do greatly appreciate the artist in Roman Polanski,
> > even so, one look at the girl involved, taken one year before the
> > infamous photo shoot over at Jack Nicholson's place . . .
>
> >http://download.kataweb.it/mediaweb/image/brand_trovacinema/2008/08/1...
>
> What can one say, but "it's been more than 30 fracking years".
Yeah, okay, and she's like totally what you might call an "old lady"
by now . . .
What is she, "one foot out of the grave" at 45 years old for the
godsakes? Even at my age of 63, I look at a woman of her age and I
think, "How did she make it past 44 without having to go to a
taxidermist? Or maybe an Egyptian mummy maker?"
> What
> is wrong with you people? Even behind the Iron Curtain, the statute of
> limitations we had was 20 years - for murder!
Yeah, but that's your whole sort of Euro-Asian way of looking at
things. Over here we know that the only thing worse than murder is
sex.
> True, there was no
> sentence longer than 20 years - the maximum was 20 years, then death -
> no 'life' mockery - but still!
Well, wait a minute. Are you saying that in the Communist world you
could get off with 20 years for like, sex and murder but if they
caught you trying to sell something for a profit, like sex and murder,
or peaches and potatos you could get death? Is that the way it
worked? What if you were caught going around in a tee-shirt that
said, "Leon Trotsky was da Bomb"? What would be the statute of
limitations on that?
> Who the bloody fracking hell cares - does the victim? no!
You do have a point there. She is being very hip and cool about it.
She's a regular goddam saint if you ask me.
> Again the
> same blood-curdling vindictiveness like in the Lockerbie case!
Right. I agreed with you on that one, remember?
> Apart
> from the fact that the very concept of "statutory rape" should be
> banished, and its supporters sentenced to 20 lashes on the town square.
Well now that one right there is a whole lot more liberal than I can
get to, but then to my eyes anything in a female younger than 44 looks
like jail-bait to me, so who am I to decide? In fact, I'm kind of
partial to older women. You take that Barbara Walters, or that Martha
Stewart for example? Yum-Yum is what I say to that stuff. Or, give me
some of that Emmy Lou Harris or Dolly Parton any old time.
By and large, I can say that I see your point, insofar as I see
extenuating circumstances in Polanski's case. I mean, what if you
came home one night to find that Sadie Mae Glutz had cut your
beautiful wife and unborn baby to ribbons--is that going to weird you
out for the rest of your life? I mean, stack all those bloody bodies
on your Beverly Hills or Bel-Air carpet on top of your Mom and Dad out
there on the bone heap at Mauthausen and Auschwitz, add in those years
you spent starving, ducking and hiding to survive the same fate, and
then tell me it's just something a man can take in stride without his
libido and his psyche getting all in a twist over it? Or is somebody
going to suppose that a person with the past of a Roman Polanski is
going to come out of it all just as normal and average and boring as
the banker's son down the street who never had to face anything worse
in his life than a flat tire on Rodeo Drive?
But as you can see, I am not looking at sex with barely pubescent
girls as something normal. I'm saying it takes a man badly bruised by
life to develop such an erotic taste as that. It takes somebody whose
affections have been so fucked with and brutalized that an image of
purity and innocence (in a pretty underage girl) just becomes for him
something he wants to debauch; he wants to wake it up, all virginal
purity in the world to the hard, throbbing facts of life as they have
been taught to him. He becomes the Night and the darkness of it that
wants to fuck the burning daylights out of the light.
It's a sad, perverse place to be, and there doesn't seem to be much
help for it anymore now that the only medicine good to treat it,
Freudian psychoanalysis is altogether so suspect as Polansky himself.
It's stupid, dark world of growing superstition we're living in, and
it's getting darker, dumber and more barbaric every day.
--
JM http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 3:11 am
From: Patok
Just Me wrote:
> On Sep 27, 11:10 pm, Patok <crazy.div.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What
>> is wrong with you people? Even behind the Iron Curtain, the statute of
>> limitations we had was 20 years - for murder!
>
> Yeah, but that's your whole sort of Euro-Asian way of looking at
> things. Over here we know that the only thing worse than murder is
> sex.
Heheh, yes. One can't help but notice that.
>
>> True, there was no
>> sentence longer than 20 years - the maximum was 20 years, then death -
>> no 'life' mockery - but still!
>
> Well, wait a minute. Are you saying that in the Communist world you
> could get off with 20 years for like, sex and murder but if they
> caught you trying to sell something for a profit, like sex and murder,
> or peaches and potatos you could get death? Is that the way it
> worked?
Not exactly like that, but you kinda get the point. :)
Seriously, there was one case that I remember where they sentenced the
guy to death, where even I, opposing the death penalty on principle,
couldn't find myself objecting. He was a serial rapist - kinda - he was
apparently quite persuasive, and his victims didn't really struggle. It
was more like forced sex - something that probably would get him
sentenced for rape over here, but then maybe not, depending on the
quality of the defense. What the asshole did, inexcusably, was that he
killed all of them, after the act, at the point when they were not
really complaining or anything; some of them were talking of meeting him
again. I remember how I was particularly disturbed by one of the
instances, where after the sex they went to have a smoke and sat on the
rim of a park fountain, and he grabbed and held her head under water
until she drowned.
Justice was swift, however; we learned about the case after he had
been executed.
>> Apart
>> from the fact that the very concept of "statutory rape" should be
>> banished, and its supporters sentenced to 20 lashes on the town square.
>
> Well now that one right there is a whole lot more liberal than I can
> get to, but then to my eyes anything in a female younger than 44 looks
> like jail-bait to me, so who am I to decide? In fact, I'm kind of
> partial to older women. You take that Barbara Walters, or that Martha
> Stewart for example? Yum-Yum is what I say to that stuff. Or, give me
> some of that Emmy Lou Harris or Dolly Parton any old time.
>
> By and large, I can say that I see your point, insofar as I see
> extenuating circumstances in Polanski's case.
Maybe not my point, as far as I don't base it on extenuating
circumstances, and not even on the Polanski case. What I mean is, that
having a blanket "statutory rape" law, based on absolute age (or age
difference) is ridiculous and has no real-world justification. Usually,
the distinction between consenting sex and rape is quite clear; rape is
rape, regardless of age, and so is sex. To say that sex is rape, because
of some arbitrary age limit, is at least unfair. /I/ consider it not
only unfair, but a crime against human nature; hence my comment about
the 20 lashes.
As to the Polanski case, maybe it was rape, but not because of the
age of the participants, but because of how it happened, and should be
judged by this criterion alone. The age of the girl is irrelevant, as
long as she was old enough to be able to have consenting sex (as she
clearly was, in this case).
I hope it is clear what the role of a statute of limitations rule
normally is, and why it should have been applied in this case, even if
it had really been a rape to begin with.
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 1:49 pm
From: Just Me
I would very much appreciate it if people would stop putting their
sticky little fingers into MY address lines, as I have authored them.
This topic is not intended for in-breeding, for intercourse between
the cousins of just one newsgroup. The purpose is not to produce a
progeny of inbred idiots, two-headed morons, armless, legless MW
imbeciles. There is some nice, normal, healthy cross-pollination
intended for this subject header, so . . .
LEAVE IT THAT WAY, GOD DAMMIT!
On Sep 27, 1:04 pm, "alejandro de tacobell"
<cerebureaucr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Just Me" <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:52778c0b-d4ce-4f21-a0ec-bf6b3ad1aeb7@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Much as many of us do greatly appreciate the artist in Roman Polanski,
> > even so, one look at the girl involved, taken one year before the
> > infamous photo shoot over at Jack Nicholson's place . . .
>
> >http://download.kataweb.it/mediaweb/image/brand_trovacinema/2008/08/1...
>
> i would have done her, too!
At this point in the discussion, a certain inbred from MW came into
the discussion to ironically suggest that Alejandro underwent a
"horrible childhood" too, that if "childhood horrors" serve to "excuse
one" should not such terrors "excuse all"?
Did you miss this part . . .
"What if you came home one night to find that Sadie Mae Glutz had cut
your wife and unborn baby to ribbons--is that going to weird you out--
but good? I mean, stack all those bloody bodies on top of your mother
and father out there on the bone heap at Mauthausen and Auschwitz--or
maybe that means nothing to you? Shouldn't affect a person? Okay, add
in those years you spent starving, ducking and hiding to survive the
same fate, and then tell me it's just something a man can take in
stride, that a person with the past of a Roman Polanski is going to
come out of it all just as normal and average and boring as the
banker's son down the street who never had to face anything worse in
his life than a flat tire on Rodeo Drive?"
--
Nobody is talking "excuses". There is no excuse for what Polanski did
to that girl. But, what's your excuse for refusing to look at the
causes for a perversion like that? Why is your mind closed? Does your
blind, emotional need for retribution twist and pervert and weird you
out that badly? Why does the question not occur to you, why he (or
some female middle school teacher in Texas) wants to mess with
underage booty and the other person does not? What's anybody's excuse
for extreme, irrational behavior on either side of the law? There is
no damned excuse for not wanting to understand the differences and the
causes. None whatsoever. People like you should be taken out and
locked in a pillory to be tomatoed in the face for a few days, until
you are heard to scream, "Stop! I do want to understand!"
"As you can see, I am not looking at sex obsessively pursued with
barely pubescent girls as something normal. I'm saying it takes a man
monstrously molested by life to develop such an erotic taste as that.
And I mean for those who indulge it compulsively. It takes somebody
whose affections have been so fucked with and brutalized that an image
of purity and innocence (in a pretty underage girl) just becomes for
him something he wants to debauch; he wants to wake it up, all
virginal purity in the world to the hard, throbbing facts of life as
they have been taught to him. He becomes the Night and the darkness of
it that wants to fuck the burning daylights out of the Day."
It's not "excuses" that are wanted here, but mercy. You got any of
that in you, babe? Can you acknowledge that not everybody's had it so
sweet and cushy as you in this life? Or does it make you envious to
think there are considerations that apply to somebody else and not to
you? Let's hear from you talking about "excuses" after you've picked
the bones of your mother off a smoking pile at Auschwitz; your wife
and unborn child cut to ribbons up off the bloody Bel-Air floor? Who
the Bloody Hell are you or anybody else to talk about "excuses"? If I
were Polanski and had the button at hand to blow up the whole God
damned world, I would need NO excuse to push it.
God damn baby-face bourgeois bullshit.
--
JM http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 7:50 pm
From: Just Me
On Sep 28, 3:40 pm,
"Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> So why would you show Polanski mercy and yet you decry the prophet for
> having a young wife? Because of Auschwitz?
What "prophet"? There was no such 'prophet'. There was a dirty little
desert brigand making a Profit on the plunder and rapine of murdered
fellow Arabs and Jews--600 years after Christ came into the world to
show men the way uncool unhipness of that. So just leave Joshua out of
it. Young wife? She was a child of eight years old, was it? It is
Jesus you want to compare to Mohammad, not Polanski. Last I checked he
had no mass murders to his credit to add to the pedophilia. And you
have your ironical little joke about Auschwitz? Send it to your pal
Ahmadinejad for the kind of laugh you'll want for that. Civilized
people got NO sense of irony about Auschwitz.
--
JM
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://jesusexegesis.blogspot.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/92153a6882249799?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Sep 27 2009 11:56 pm
From: djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
In article <b763cc9c-9be7-47ba-b23f-b7cd80bed4d7@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
DouhetSukd <douhetsukd@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 26, 9:10 pm, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 5:34 pm, DouhetSukd <douhets...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, of course. If it's like most college bookstores, the only used
>> books it carries are textbooks for classes. Obviously the wrong place
>> to look for science fiction and fantasy; for that you want a used book
>> store.
>
>Beg to differ. I would have gotten better grades in my EE courses had
>my college bookstore had a more modest SF selection at the time.
Long, long ago, in the morning of the world when there was
less noise and more green, I took a summer course at
Stanford, which got me access to the library stacks. They had
a complete run of F&SF (up to that time, which was about 1960).
I had *such* a lovely time. I even got some coursework done
too, 'cause they also had the complete works of Federico
Garcia Lorca.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 7:22 am
From: "Stanley Moore"
"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <lwe@sff.net> wrote in message
news:2a5qb5p9m9orjodmip4sfsnuqn4kvu3b0g@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Stratum101
> <j.collier@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 25, 9:43 am, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> UShttp://www.leepers.us/evelyn/bookshops/na-sw.htm Southwestern
>>
>>I'd move Texas from "southwestern" into "southern".
>>It is culturally Southern and only a little over
>>100 miles from Louisiana.
>
> Not all of Texas is culturally Southern. Not all of Texas is
> ANYTHING. It's an absurdly huge place, and the line between Southern
> and Southwestern runs through it, not along its border.
>
> And what's 100 miles from Louisiana? Texas adjoins Louisiana -- but
> San Antonio, for example, is hundreds of miles from that border. Did
> you mean Dallas?
>
> To me, Dallas doesn't seem culturally Southern.
>
I agree that Dallas is culturally "Texan" <G> not Southern. We are big and
diverse. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 7:20 am
From: "Stanley Moore"
"Stratum101" <j.collier@cross-comp.com> wrote in message
news:e68dc9ef-becb-4bf2-9bec-2db601ddc496@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 25, 9:43 am, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
> UShttp://www.leepers.us/evelyn/bookshops/na-sw.htm Southwestern
I'd move Texas from "southwestern" into "southern".
It is culturally Southern and only a little over
100 miles from Louisiana.
***********************************************
Actually it is 0 miles from Louisiana as Texas borders that state <G>. Texas
is a big state and is culturally diverse. I agree that Houston area is
Southern in orientation but Laredo and the western parts are Western while
Lubbock and the panhandle are more Midwestern and Brownsville near the
Mexican border is different yet. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 8:59 am
From: Stratum101
On Sep 28, 9:22 am, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2a5qb5p9m9orjodmip4sfsnuqn4kvu3b0g@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Stratum101
> > <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Sep 25, 9:43 am, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>> UShttp://www.leepers.us/evelyn/bookshops/na-sw.htmSouthwestern
>
> >>I'd move Texas from "southwestern" into "southern".
> >>It is culturally Southern and only a little over
> >>100 miles from Louisiana.
>
> > Not all of Texas is culturally Southern. Not all of Texas is
> > ANYTHING. It's an absurdly huge place, and the line between Southern
> > and Southwestern runs through it, not along its border.
>
> > And what's 100 miles from Louisiana? Texas adjoins Louisiana -- but
> > San Antonio, for example, is hundreds of miles from that border. Did
> > you mean Dallas?
>
> > To me, Dallas doesn't seem culturally Southern.
>
> I agree that Dallas is culturally "Texan" <G> not Southern. We are big and
> diverse. Take care
This is the sort of silly boosterism that one commonly hears
around Dallas and Fort Worth, that is, that they're "Western".
In fact, the owner of one of the used bookstores in the
big ol' Metroplex, a place in Handley over on the east
side of Fort Worth, informed me that *California*
isn't really the West. Texuss iz, y'all.
I don't know how to argue with such unvarnished
ignorance. I will say as a guy who has read
just about all of Wallace Stegner and who has
spent most of his life in the Far West that
*we* know where the place is even if Texans
are geographically naive.
If you're in Dallas, pard, you're down in
the South.
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 10:00 am
From: Stratum101
On Sep 28, 9:20 am, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Actually it is 0 miles from Louisiana as Texas borders that state <G>. Texas
> is a big state and is culturally diverse. I agree that Houston area is
> Southern in orientation but Laredo and the western parts are Western while
> Lubbock and the panhandle are more Midwestern and Brownsville near the
> Mexican border is different yet.
Yes, and I understand your desire to keep Dallas out of
the South, but even I can see the place has changed from
the redneck, Jim Crow town where I lived in the
late 1960s.
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 10:19 am
From: "Stanley Moore"
"Stratum101" <j.collier@cross-comp.com> wrote in message
news:cbf2cc29-3a06-42d7-93b1-90f36280df96@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 28, 9:22 am, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2a5qb5p9m9orjodmip4sfsnuqn4kvu3b0g@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Stratum101
> > <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Sep 25, 9:43 am, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>> UShttp://www.leepers.us/evelyn/bookshops/na-sw.htmSouthwestern
>
> >>I'd move Texas from "southwestern" into "southern".
> >>It is culturally Southern and only a little over
> >>100 miles from Louisiana.
>
> > Not all of Texas is culturally Southern. Not all of Texas is
> > ANYTHING. It's an absurdly huge place, and the line between Southern
> > and Southwestern runs through it, not along its border.
>
> > And what's 100 miles from Louisiana? Texas adjoins Louisiana -- but
> > San Antonio, for example, is hundreds of miles from that border. Did
> > you mean Dallas?
>
> > To me, Dallas doesn't seem culturally Southern.
>
> I agree that Dallas is culturally "Texan" <G> not Southern. We are big and
> diverse. Take care
This is the sort of silly boosterism that one commonly hears
around Dallas and Fort Worth, that is, that they're "Western".
In fact, the owner of one of the used bookstores in the
big ol' Metroplex, a place in Handley over on the east
side of Fort Worth, informed me that *California*
isn't really the West. Texuss iz, y'all.
I don't know how to argue with such unvarnished
ignorance. I will say as a guy who has read
just about all of Wallace Stegner and who has
spent most of his life in the Far West that
*we* know where the place is even if Texans
are geographically naive.
If you're in Dallas, pard, you're down in
the South.
*******************************************
I am in Houston which I agree is "South" and Texas was part of the
Confederacy so by definition is South. Dallas on the other hand thinks it is
western but it lies to the east of the real West. In reality the next city
to the west of Dallas is Fort Worth which is the site of a army fort founded
in 1849, one of a series to mark the western frontier. Fort Worth (where I
was born) sometimes styles itself "Where the West Begins". So Dallas
shouldn't call itself :western". Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 3:09 pm
From: Stratum101
On Sep 28, 12:19 pm, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Stratum101" <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cbf2cc29-3a06-42d7-93b1-90f36280df96@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 28, 9:22 am, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:2a5qb5p9m9orjodmip4sfsnuqn4kvu3b0g@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Stratum101
> > > <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>
> > >>On Sep 25, 9:43 am, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> UShttp://www.leepers.us/evelyn/bookshops/na-sw.htmSouthwestern
>
> > >>I'd move Texas from "southwestern" into "southern".
> > >>It is culturally Southern and only a little over
> > >>100 miles from Louisiana.
>
> > > Not all of Texas is culturally Southern. Not all of Texas is
> > > ANYTHING. It's an absurdly huge place, and the line between Southern
> > > and Southwestern runs through it, not along its border.
>
> > > And what's 100 miles from Louisiana? Texas adjoins Louisiana -- but
> > > San Antonio, for example, is hundreds of miles from that border. Did
> > > you mean Dallas?
>
> > > To me, Dallas doesn't seem culturally Southern.
>
> > I agree that Dallas is culturally "Texan" <G> not Southern. We are big and
> > diverse. Take care
>
> This is the sort of silly boosterism that one commonly hears
> around Dallas and Fort Worth, that is, that they're "Western".
> In fact, the owner of one of the used bookstores in the
> big ol' Metroplex, a place in Handley over on the east
> side of Fort Worth, informed me that *California*
> isn't really the West. Texuss iz, y'all.
>
> I don't know how to argue with such unvarnished
> ignorance. I will say as a guy who has read
> just about all of Wallace Stegner and who has
> spent most of his life in the Far West that
> *we* know where the place is even if Texans
> are geographically naive.
>
> If you're in Dallas, pard, you're down in
> the South.
>
> *******************************************
> I am in Houston which I agree is "South" and Texas was part of the
> Confederacy so by definition is South. Dallas on the other hand thinks it is
> western but it lies to the east of the real West. In reality the next city
> to the west of Dallas is Fort Worth which is the site of a army fort founded
> in 1849, one of a series to mark the western frontier. Fort Worth (where I
> was born) sometimes styles itself "Where the West Begins". So Dallas
> shouldn't call itself :western". Take care
Fort Worth is "Where the West begins" because the
drunkard Sam Houston decreed that Commanches or
some tribe he didn't like were to stay west
of a line that began at Fort Worth. He could've
said they were to stay north of Waco which
would put Fort Worth 90 miles into Yankee
territory.
Texans who think they're in the West might
be shocked to learn that in California
the phrase "back east" often refers
to Texas.
Way back east. Dallas is nearly
2000 miles from San Francisco.
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 3:22 pm
From: "Stanley Moore"
"Stratum101" <j.collier@cross-comp.com> wrote in message
news:97a9d992-af5f-4461-87b9-1c6b99396c6b@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 28, 12:19 pm, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Stratum101" <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cbf2cc29-3a06-42d7-93b1-90f36280df96@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 28, 9:22 am, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:2a5qb5p9m9orjodmip4sfsnuqn4kvu3b0g@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Stratum101
> > > <j.coll...@cross-comp.com> wrote:
>
> > >>On Sep 25, 9:43 am, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> UShttp://www.leepers.us/evelyn/bookshops/na-sw.htmSouthwestern
>
> > >>I'd move Texas from "southwestern" into "southern".
> > >>It is culturally Southern and only a little over
> > >>100 miles from Louisiana.
>
> > > Not all of Texas is culturally Southern. Not all of Texas is
> > > ANYTHING. It's an absurdly huge place, and the line between Southern
> > > and Southwestern runs through it, not along its border.
>
> > > And what's 100 miles from Louisiana? Texas adjoins Louisiana -- but
> > > San Antonio, for example, is hundreds of miles from that border. Did
> > > you mean Dallas?
>
> > > To me, Dallas doesn't seem culturally Southern.
>
> > I agree that Dallas is culturally "Texan" <G> not Southern. We are big
> > and
> > diverse. Take care
>
> This is the sort of silly boosterism that one commonly hears
> around Dallas and Fort Worth, that is, that they're "Western".
> In fact, the owner of one of the used bookstores in the
> big ol' Metroplex, a place in Handley over on the east
> side of Fort Worth, informed me that *California*
> isn't really the West. Texuss iz, y'all.
>
> I don't know how to argue with such unvarnished
> ignorance. I will say as a guy who has read
> just about all of Wallace Stegner and who has
> spent most of his life in the Far West that
> *we* know where the place is even if Texans
> are geographically naive.
>
> If you're in Dallas, pard, you're down in
> the South.
>
> *******************************************
> I am in Houston which I agree is "South" and Texas was part of the
> Confederacy so by definition is South. Dallas on the other hand thinks it
> is
> western but it lies to the east of the real West. In reality the next city
> to the west of Dallas is Fort Worth which is the site of a army fort
> founded
> in 1849, one of a series to mark the western frontier. Fort Worth (where I
> was born) sometimes styles itself "Where the West Begins". So Dallas
> shouldn't call itself :western". Take care
Fort Worth is "Where the West begins" because the
drunkard Sam Houston decreed that Commanches or
some tribe he didn't like were to stay west
of a line that began at Fort Worth. He could've
said they were to stay north of Waco which
would put Fort Worth 90 miles into Yankee
territory.
Texans who think they're in the West might
be shocked to learn that in California
the phrase "back east" often refers
to Texas.
Way back east. Dallas is nearly
2000 miles from San Francisco.
********************************************************
At its widest Texas is some 900 miles across. There is a verse that
describes travelling the state:
"The sun is riz, the sun is set,
But we is in Texas yet."
By the way you shouldn't diss Sam Houston the great Texas hero. True he
might have had "issues" and was fond of a dram now and then. You must
remember that water purification was a bit dicey then and whiskey was a good
cure for stomach illnesses. Remember General Worth for whom Fort Worth was
named died of cholera.
Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 4:35 pm
From: J
Talk about "thread drift"...
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 4:53 pm
From: Stratum101
On Sep 28, 5:22 pm, "Stanley Moore" <smoor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> By the way you shouldn't diss Sam Houston the great Texas hero.
Yeah, yeah. He was such a tubular sandwich.
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 8:51 pm
From: "Joan in GB-W"
"J" <jmelsna@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:b39af7f1-79f0-4d1b-8cf3-56289b3bcd02@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
> Talk about "thread drift"...
Yep. RAM is famous for thread drift.
Joan
==============================================================================
TOPIC: On not having been there
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/5818036fb2153069?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 5:54 am
From: Stratum101
In today's Arts & Letters Daily, I came across P. J. O'Rourke's
funny review of three books dealing with the Woodstock
phenomenon in August, 1969.
"Each book is worse than the others, and any would be enough to
banish all interest in Woodstock even if you were guilty of
(or pleading) nolo contendere to having been there."
He turned from a late 1960s hippie to a Republican. I turned
from an Ayn Rand libertarian nerd Repug into a liberal. Forty
years on, there are bound to be a few changes.
See "Sex, Drugs, Music, Mud" at
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/016/855kqqaj.asp?pg=2
==============================================================================
TOPIC: gandi's drunkard son pray tell why you turned into a muslim
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/9bb1fe5a4b197d00?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 11:02 am
From: "harmony"
lol.
you are filled with hatred, a sign of a failed weakling trying to blame
somebody else. hearing you speak of satyam or shivam or sundaram makes for
lol.
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:bSKvm.43530$ze1.28565@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "harmony" <aka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4aba9de1$0$23771$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net...
>>
>> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> news:Flnum.42540$ze1.33555@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Michael" <marty.musatov@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:86e8ac9d-af66-42c2-8e30-87d92ed5fc1c@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Sep 22, 3:58 am, Bappa <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 21, 11:47 pm, Bappa <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Sep 20, 11:03 pm, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > > On Sep 20, 12:50 pm, Bappa <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > > > On Sep 18, 3:42 am, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi>
>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > > > > There is an interesting new book out about the
>>>> > > > > history of Cantor's set theory. It seems to
>>>> > > > > me that the book lends support to Feyerabend's
>>>> > > > > philosophy of science in _Against Method_.
>>>> > > > > Science can progress through *any* method,
>>>>
>>>> > > > Sorry, Marko, this is dead wrong. The only valid *method* in
>>>> > > > science
>>>> > > > is the *experimental* method - meaning, repeatability of results
>>>> > > > under
>>>> > > > controlled and same conditions. The rest is analysis and
>>>> > > > discussion.
>>>>
>>>> > > I was referring to Paul Feyerabend. He was engaged in an argument
>>>> > > with philosophers of science such as Karl Popper
>>>>
>>>> > If one cannot be a scientist, one can be a philosopher of science,
>>>> > evidently! Heh-heh.
>>>>
>>>> > > over the question
>>>> > > of whether there is one single correct Scientific Method. The
>>>> > > argument
>>>> > > is not over the necessity of experiments in science, but other
>>>> > > issues.
>>>> > > Here is one summary of Feyerabend's arguments:
>>>>
>>>> > Thanks for posting this. I will go through it.
>>>>
>>>> > > Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical
>>>> > > anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage
>>>> > > progress
>>>> > > than its law-and-order alternatives.
>>>>
>>>> > The scientist can be anarchic, if he is independent and not under
>>>> > some
>>>> > institution. Science is not anarchic. It follows extremely well-laid
>>>> > and well-defined patterns and principles. The anarchy of the
>>>> > scientist lies in his revolt against a corrupting establishment, that
>>>> > corrupts science. Like, a person like me, who has debunked Einstein's
>>>> > wrong theories, is anarchic. But I have the greatest regard for the
>>>> > scientific method - which is EXPERIMENT. Beyond the experiment, there
>>>> > is the analysis. Wrong analysis, repetition of bungles and blunders,
>>>> > lead to disaster even when the experiment is correctly done. Check
>>>> > out
>>>>
>>>> >www.users.bigpond.com/adda1234/MMInt.htm as an example, that shows
>>>> > how a correctly done experiment led to very bad and wrong and in fact
>>>> > disastrous results as a result of wrong analysis.
>>>>
>>>> > > This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by
>>>> > > an
>>>> > > abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only
>>>> > > principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.
>>>>
>>>> > No, that is wrong. Immoral and cowardly approaches do not help in the
>>>> > least. In the long run, at least.
>>>>
>>>> > > For example, we may use hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed
>>>> > > theories and/or well-established experimental results. We may
>>>> > > advance
>>>> > > science by proceeding counter-inductively.
>>>>
>>>> > Again, wrong. Einstein's theories were and are wrong. They were
>>>> > wrong because they were based upon a blunder, in analysing the
>>>> > results
>>>> > of the MM interferometry experiment. They were "proved" by the atom
>>>> > bomb apparently, but my new formula relating mass and energy shows
>>>> > how
>>>> > wrong they all were. Now, my formula will be proved right only when I
>>>> > make a model of an Internal Force Engine. That will be some
>>>> > experiment! Till then, my work is theoretical, and of no practical
>>>> > value - yet.
>>>>
>>>> > > The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree
>>>> > > with
>>>> > > accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older
>>>> > > theory, and not the better theory. Hypotheses contradicting well-
>>>> > > confirmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any
>>>> > > other way. Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science,
>>>> > > while
>>>> > > uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers
>>>> > > the
>>>> > > free development of the individual.
>>>>
>>>> > So far so good. Yes there can be many theories, but only proper
>>>> > experiment can decide which one is the most correct at any given
>>>> > time. Till then, we live in the world of speculation.
>>>>
>>>> > > There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable
>>>> > > of
>>>> > > improving our knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> > Increasing knowledge is not the same as improving knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> > The whole history of thought is absorbed into
>>>>
>>>> > > science and is used for improving every single theory. Nor is
>>>> > > political interference rejected. It may be needed to overcome the
>>>> > > chauvinism of science that resists alternatives to the status quo.
>>>> > > No theory ever agrees with all the facts in its domain,
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any facts going against the theories of gravitation,
>>>> electromagnetics, atomic structure, etc. which form the core of hard
>>>> science. I see lots of facts going against the theories of relativity
>>>> and quantum and entropy.
>>>>
>>>> yet it is not
>>>>
>>>> > > always the theory that is to blame. Facts are constituted by older
>>>> > > ideologies, and a clash between facts and theories may be proof of
>>>> > > progress.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is a proof of regress. It is proof that bad theories are
>>>> winning out over good theories. It is proof that the establishment is
>>>> corrupt and forcing people to live in a world of lies.
>>>>
>>>> It is also a first step in our attempts to find the
>>>>
>>>> > > principles implicit in familiar observational notions.
>>>> > > As an example of such an attempt I examine the tower argument which
>>>> > > the Aristotelians used to refute the motion of the earth.
>>>>
>>>> Scratch any Einsteinian deep enough, and you will find an
>>>> Aristotelian. Special relativity can be correct if and only if the
>>>> Earth is standing still, so much I myself have proved beyond doubt. I
>>>> suspect that the success of Einstein has some deep (and disgustingly
>>>> wrong) theological basis.
>>>>
>>>> The argument
>>>>
>>>> > > involves natural interpretations - ideas so closely connected with
>>>> > > observations that it needs a special effort to realise their
>>>> > > existence
>>>> > > and to determine their content. Galileo identifies the natural
>>>> > > interpretations which are inconsistent with Copernicus and replaces
>>>> > > them by others.
>>>>
>>>> Huh? Galileo found out with his telescope that Jupiter had moons. So
>>>> if Jupiter's moons could go around Jupiter, the Earth could go around
>>>> the Sun. It would then move, that is. Which was what Copernicus was
>>>> saying, as opposed to the standard Aristotelian theory that the Sun
>>>> and everything else was going around the Earth.
>>>>
>>>> The Church did not want to hear about the Earth's mobility, so they
>>>> made Galileo shut up.
>>>>
>>>> Again, this was what I learnt in my First Year in Engineering from the
>>>> Humanities Dept. We read the play "Galileo" by Brecht.
>>>>
>>>> > > The new natural interpretations constitute a new and highly
>>>> > > abstract
>>>> > > observation language. They are introduced and concealed so that one
>>>> > > falls to notice the change that has taken place (method of
>>>> > > anamnesis).
>>>> > > They contain the idea of the relativity of all motion and the law
>>>> > > of
>>>> > > circular inertia.
>>>>
>>>> Here we go again, with wrong theories like relativity and circular
>>>> inertia trying to out the right ones like gravity. Wrong observations
>>>> and wrong deductions are crucial for the success of wrong theories.
>>>> The MM interferometry experiment, with its wrong analysis, done many
>>>> times by many people, is the biggest proof of this.
>>>>
>>>> > > Initial difficulties caused by the change are defused by ad hoc
>>>> > > hypotheses, which thus turn out occasionally to have a positive
>>>> > > function; they give new theories a breathing space, and they
>>>> > > indicate
>>>> > > the direction of future research.
>>>>
>>>> So long as folks still have wits and guts. What with idiot-box TV,
>>>> novels and permissiveness, ease of every kind, junk food and
>>>> establishmentarianism meaning safe and comfortable pensions after
>>>> retirement for all the slimy sucking-up PhuDs, the very concept of
>>>> anarchic research has long ceased to exist anywhere on the planet.
>>>> Except, maybe, in Kazakhstan, where men are ruled by men and not by
>>>> little girls. Because they have the best potassium, as we know, from
>>>> Borat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > > In addition to natural interpretations, Galileo also changes
>>>> > > sensations that seem to endanger Copernicus. He admits that there
>>>> > > are
>>>> > > such sensations, he praises Copernicus for having disregarded them,
>>>> > > he
>>>> > > claims to have removed them with the help of the telescope.
>>>> > > However,
>>>> > > he offers no theoretical reasons why the telescope should be
>>>> > > expected
>>>> > > to give a true picture of the sky.
>>>> > > Nor does the initial experience with the telescope provide such
>>>> > > reasons. The first telescopic observations of the sky are
>>>> > > indistinct,
>>>> > > indeterminate, contradictory and in conflict with what everyone can
>>>> > > see with his unaided eyes. And, the only theory that could have
>>>> > > helped
>>>> > > to separate telescopic illusions from veridical phenomena was
>>>> > > refuted
>>>> > > by simple tests.
>>>> > > On the other hand, there are some telescopic phenomena which are
>>>> > > plainly Copernican. Galileo introduces these phenomena as
>>>> > > independent
>>>> > > evidence for Copernicus while the situation is rather that one
>>>> > > refuted
>>>> > > view - Copernicanism - has a certain similarity with phenomena
>>>> > > emerging from another refuted view - the idea that telescopic
>>>> > > phenomena are faithful images of the sky. Galileo prevails because
>>>> > > of
>>>> > > his style and his clever techniques of persuasion, because he
>>>> > > writes
>>>> > > in Italian rather than in Latin, and because he appeals to people
>>>> > > who
>>>> > > are temperamentally opposed to the old ideas and the standards of
>>>> > > learning connected with them.
>>>>
>>>> Galileo prevailed far more over Aristotle (his orbiting moons
>>>> shattered Aristotle's crystal spheres, remember) than Copernicus till
>>>> Einstein came up with his relativistic bs; given the modern success of
>>>> the Einsteinians (aka Aristotleians) it looks like his success has had
>>>> a hopefully temporary break. I don't see how Galileo and Copernicus
>>>> were at odds. Galileo's telescope showed the moons, and later on it
>>>> was found that the movement of heavenly bodies made much more sense if
>>>> the Copernican model was followed.
>>>>
>>>> > > Such 'irrational' methods of support are needed because of the
>>>> > > 'uneven
>>>> > > development' (Marx, Lenin) of different parts of science.
>>>> > > Copernicanism and other essential ingredients of modern science
>>>> > > survived only because reason was frequently overruled in their
>>>> > > past.
>>>>
>>>> Reason was over-ruled only by by bigots, like those who burnt Bruno
>>>> for daring to say that the universe was infinite. Science has never
>>>> gained from bigotry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > > Galileo's method works in other fields as well. For example, it can
>>>> > > be
>>>> > > used to eliminate the existing arguments against materialism, and
>>>> > > to
>>>> > > put an end to the philosophical mind/body problem (the
>>>> > > corresponding
>>>> > > scientific problems remain untouched, however).
>>>> > > The results obtained so far suggest abolishing the distinction
>>>> > > between
>>>> > > a context of discovery and a context of justification and
>>>> > > disregarding
>>>> > > the related distinction between observational terms and theoretical
>>>> > > terms. Neither distinction plays a role in scientific practice.
>>>> > > Attempts to enforce them would have disastrous consequences.
>>>> > > Finally, the discussion in Chapters 6-13 shows that Popper's
>>>> > > version
>>>> > > of Mill's pluralism is not in agreement with scientific practice
>>>> > > and
>>>> > > would destroy science as we know it. Given science, reason cannot
>>>> > > be
>>>> > > universal and unreason cannot be excluded. This feature of science
>>>> > > calls for an anarchistic epistemology. The realisation that science
>>>> > > is
>>>> > > not sacrosanct, and that the debate between science and myth has
>>>> > > ceased without having been won by either side, further strengthens
>>>> > > the
>>>> > > case for anarchism.
>>>> > > Even the ingenious attempt of Lakatos to construct a methodology
>>>> > > that
>>>> > > (a) does not issue orders and yet (b) puts restrictions upon our
>>>> > > knowledge-increasing activities, does not escape this conclusion.
>>>> > > For
>>>> > > Lakatos' philosophy appears liberal only because it is an anarchism
>>>> > > in
>>>> > > disguise. And his standards which are abstracted from modern
>>>> > > science
>>>> > > cannot be regarded as neutral arbiters in the issue between modern
>>>> > > science and Aristotelian science, myth, magic, religion, etc.
>>>> > > Moreover, these standards, which involve a comparison of content
>>>> > > classes, are not always applicable. The content classes of certain
>>>> > > theories are incomparable in the sense that none of the usual
>>>> > > logical
>>>> > > relations (inclusion, exclusion, overlap) can be said to hold
>>>> > > between
>>>> > > them. This occurs when we compare myths with science. It also
>>>> > > occurs
>>>> > > in the most advanced, most general and therefore most mythological
>>>> > > parts of science itself.
>>>>
>>>> There is real science, upon which engineering is based. Then there is
>>>> wrong science, upon which academics thrive, under the patronage of the
>>>> politicians. Wrong science is far more dishonest than voodoo.
>>>>
>>>> > > Thus science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is
>>>> > > prepared to admit.
>>>>
>>>> Myth is wonderful, for it deals with the deepest ideas of existence.
>>>> The scientist can derive inspiration from myth, especially in a
>>>> cynical atheistic world. However, science has nothing to do with
>>>> myth.
>>>>
>>>> It is one of the many forms of thought that have
>>>>
>>>> > > been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is
>>>> > > conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior
>>>> > > only
>>>> > > for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology,
>>>> > > or
>>>> > > who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages
>>>> > > and
>>>> > > its limits. And as the accepting and rejecting of ideologies should
>>>> > > be
>>>> > > left to the individual it follows that the separation of state and
>>>> > > church must be supplemented by the separation of state and science,
>>>> > > that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious
>>>> > > institution. Such a separation may be our only chance to achieve a
>>>> > > humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realised.
>>>>
>>>> It is too bad, that the atheists have made out science to be their
>>>> religion. When it is just a straightforward, honest, meticulous set
>>>> of methods (experiment) and fair and balanced observation, analysis,
>>>> discussion leading to the formation of correct theories for correct
>>>> predictions. It is a branch on the great tree of Art...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > >http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerab...
>>>>
>>>> > > > This is what I was taught in my engineering institute (First
>>>> > > > Year) by
>>>> > > > the profs. in the Humanities Dept. IIT Kharagur was the only IIT
>>>> > > > where there was a firmly established and motivated Humanities
>>>> > > > department.
>>>>
>>>> > > > > including the paradoxical fact that the progress
>>>> > > > > of mathematics was aided by the mysticism
>>>> > > > > of Russian mathematicians who accepted
>>>> > > > > Cantor's set theory because it fit their
>>>> > > > > mystical beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> > > > Now what has maths to do with science? The Queen of Arts is
>>>> > > > Mathematics, and Science pays the most humble homage to Her.
>>>>
>>>> > > Many people would include mathematics as part of science.
>>>>
>>>> > They used to give B.A. in maths, in the great days of maths. Science
>>>> > serves maths, not the other way around, in any honest establishment.
>>>> > Especially when by maths they mean statistics.
>>>>
>>>> > > There is an element of mathematics that is similar to the
>>>> > > arts but I would not call mathematics an art.
>>>>
>>>> > I would. Mathematics is the Queen of Arts, and Philosophy is the
>>>> > King.
>>>>
>>>> > Aesthetic
>>>>
>>>> > > considerations play a role in mathematics, but they also
>>>> > > play a role in theoretical physics.
>>>>
>>>> > Arts is not just about aesthetics. Arts is about art - about subtle
>>>> > trickery - the means with which we differentiate ourselves from the
>>>> > denizens of the wild.
>>>>
>>>> > > There are no experiments
>>>> > > in mathematics but the use of logical deduction sets it
>>>> > > apart from the arts. The fundamental concepts of mathematics
>>>> > > have a basis in experience, but the concepts have been
>>>> > > abstracted.
>>>>
>>>> > I think we are on different wavelengths. I depend upon maths for my
>>>> > living. And the set theory you are talking about, is a daily
>>>> > phenomenon for me these days, when I write SQL code. Maths is
>>>> > abstract for dilettantes and those in academia maybe, but for an
>>>> > engineer/computer scientist/mathematical modeller/etc. like myself,
>>>> > it
>>>> > is very very concrete indeed.
>>>>
>>>> > It is late, so I have not replied in greater detail. May do that
>>>> > later. Thanks a lot for your wonderful post, as illuminating as ever.
>>>>
>>>> > Cheers, and with regards,
>>>>
>>>> > Arindam Banerjee- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> Guts faith and goodness, but none of it matters without goodness. --
>>> Martin Musatov
>>>
>>> Truth above goodness: The beauty that is not based upon goodness is not
>>> beautiful; the good that is not based upon truth is not good.
>>>
>>> Satyam Shivam Sundaram - Truth Goodness Beauty - strictly in that order.
>>> And by Truth, we mean the whole truth, the whole balanced truth, and
>>> nothing but the truth.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Arindam Banerjee.
>>>
>>
>> which reminds me of rajghat, the memorial to mahatma gandhi: satyam (he
>> practised truth)
>
> No he did not. He claimed to be a Hindu, but he was much more an agent of
> Christian imperialism and Muslim appeasement. What was true about him,
> was his commitment to his native state of Gujarat - at the expense of
> Bengal and Punjab, of course.
>
> shivam (he was always kind and good)
>
> Oh ho ho. He slept naked with his naked neices. He abused their trust,
> and their innocence. He exploited them. Today anyone with any sense will
> know him as an extraordinary pervert. He was such an egotist that he did
> not even think that he was doing wrong. But then, I may be wronging him,
> as sleeping naked with your naked neices may well be part of the Gujarati
> tradition! On a different scale, his backstabbing of Bose led India to
> lose the one great leader that would have lifted them out of poverty and
> want, and turned India into a superpower today.
>
> sundaram (now modern
>> designers think khadi is beautiful).
>
> Well at least you do have the sense not to praise Gandi's looks. One minor
> plus point for you.
>
> what's the word for those who hate
>> mahatma gandhi?
>
> Who hated that fellow more than his OWN SON, who was in the best position
> to know his father as he really was? Lord Wavell was being too kind when
> he said he was 10% saint, 10% charlatan and 80% very astute politician.
>
> Oi gandi kay aulaad yay toe butaa
> tu musaalman buna kyoN?
>
> Poor gandi-ka-santaan, turning into a drunkard and converting to Islam was
> evidently his way of getting back at his egotistical, manipulative,
> moralising and hypocritical wife-abusing father. What a man to be
> labelled the Father of the Nation! Who wants to be like gandi's own
> son... Is gandi a model father?
>
> Is not gandi (a closet Christian, and a traitor to Hindus; a hideous
> creature to the core; a self-righteous egomanical creature who totally
> screwed up the message of the Gita, a dictatorial leader who in the
> political sense turned the whole population into opportunistic bastards
> and cowardly bundurrrs, ignorant of their true traditions; the epitome of
> static poverty, weakness, petulance, ignorance, stupidity, egotism,
> selfishness) best described as the Mahabandar of Porbandar?
>
> So harmony, are you really a Muslim, or at least a Christian, for your
> great support to the humbug gandi?
>
> Why should any self-respecting Hindu have the slightest regard for that
> hideous traitor, who showed absolutely no concern for Hindus? So many
> Hindu lives were lost, so many Hindu lives and hopes were and are spoilt,
> because of gandi's most ineffective, backstabbing, ego-maniacal
> leadership. Nothing good happened to non-Gujarati Indians because of
> gandi. To say that he led India to independence, is the biggest lie we had
> to learn (and unlearn, if you are not a guj-jew).
>
> Unless the "Hindu" in question is a fundie-Christian-money-loving liar and
> hypocrite - a worthy descendant of the Mahabandar of Porbandar, thus.
> What is still slightly amusing is that you praise gandi while also
> intensely hating Christians and Muslims who were so loved by gandi.
>
> Ah well, if Indians are so foolish to still think well of gandi, that is
> their business. I have only tried to set things straight, based upon the
> important understanding that the lovely sequence Satyam Shivam Sundaram
> must have a decreasing order of importance. Looking deeply into gandi, we
> do not find anything shivam or satyam under his extremely ugly appearance.
> A lack of satyam and shivam, thus inevitably leads to the lack of
> sundaram. However, the lack of sundaram (which is a highly subjective
> matter, though in the case of gandi no one thinks him sundar appearance
> wise, so he well may be a standard of ugliness) does not necessarily mean
> lack of shivam and satyam. What shivam and satyam can be found in any
> traitor? No amount of gandian moralising, institutional push, media
> boost, brainwashing etc. can alter the fact that gandi was a traitor. The
> writings of his killer, now at last released, makes gandi's treachery
> self-evident to anyone with any sense of fairness. Not that I condone
> gandi's killing, for that was too extreme. He should have behaved like the
> brave Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at Bush.
>
> Arindam Banerjee
>
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 1:02 pm
From: Mirza Ghalib
On Sep 28, 11:02 am, "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> lol.
> you are filled with hatred, a sign of a failed weakling trying to blame
> somebody else. hearing you speak of satyam or shivam or sundaram makes for
> lol.
>
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bSKvm.43530$ze1.28565@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:4aba9de1$0$23771$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net...
>
> >> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> >>news:Flnum.42540$ze1.33555@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> >>> "Michael" <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:86e8ac9d-af66-42c2-8e30-87d92ed5fc1c@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Sep 22, 3:58 am, Bappa <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 21, 11:47 pm, Bappa <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> > On Sep 20, 11:03 pm, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
> >>>> > > On Sep 20, 12:50 pm, Bappa <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> > > > On Sep 18, 3:42 am, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi>
> >>>> > > > wrote:
>
> >>>> > > > > There is an interesting new book out about the
> >>>> > > > > history of Cantor's set theory. It seems to
> >>>> > > > > me that the book lends support to Feyerabend's
> >>>> > > > > philosophy of science in _Against Method_.
> >>>> > > > > Science can progress through *any* method,
>
> >>>> > > > Sorry, Marko, this is dead wrong. The only valid *method* in
> >>>> > > > science
> >>>> > > > is the *experimental* method - meaning, repeatability of results
> >>>> > > > under
> >>>> > > > controlled and same conditions. The rest is analysis and
> >>>> > > > discussion.
>
> >>>> > > I was referring to Paul Feyerabend. He was engaged in an argument
> >>>> > > with philosophers of science such as Karl Popper
>
> >>>> > If one cannot be a scientist, one can be a philosopher of science,
> >>>> > evidently! Heh-heh.
>
> >>>> > > over the question
> >>>> > > of whether there is one single correct Scientific Method. The
> >>>> > > argument
> >>>> > > is not over the necessity of experiments in science, but other
> >>>> > > issues.
> >>>> > > Here is one summary of Feyerabend's arguments:
>
> >>>> > Thanks for posting this. I will go through it.
>
> >>>> > > Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical
> >>>> > > anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage
> >>>> > > progress
> >>>> > > than its law-and-order alternatives.
>
> >>>> > The scientist can be anarchic, if he is independent and not under
> >>>> > some
> >>>> > institution. Science is not anarchic. It follows extremely well-laid
> >>>> > and well-defined patterns and principles. The anarchy of the
> >>>> > scientist lies in his revolt against a corrupting establishment, that
> >>>> > corrupts science. Like, a person like me, who has debunked Einstein's
> >>>> > wrong theories, is anarchic. But I have the greatest regard for the
> >>>> > scientific method - which is EXPERIMENT. Beyond the experiment, there
> >>>> > is the analysis. Wrong analysis, repetition of bungles and blunders,
> >>>> > lead to disaster even when the experiment is correctly done. Check
> >>>> > out
>
> >>>> >www.users.bigpond.com/adda1234/MMInt.htmas an example, that shows
> >>>> > how a correctly done experiment led to very bad and wrong and in fact
> >>>> > disastrous results as a result of wrong analysis.
>
> >>>> > > This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by
> >>>> > > an
> >>>> > > abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only
> >>>> > > principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.
>
> >>>> > No, that is wrong. Immoral and cowardly approaches do not help in the
> >>>> > least. In the long run, at least.
>
> >>>> > > For example, we may use hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed
> >>>> > > theories and/or well-established experimental results. We may
> >>>> > > advance
> >>>> > > science by proceeding counter-inductively.
>
> >>>> > Again, wrong. Einstein's theories were and are wrong. They were
> >>>> > wrong because they were based upon a blunder, in analysing the
> >>>> > results
> >>>> > of the MM interferometry experiment. They were "proved" by the atom
> >>>> > bomb apparently, but my new formula relating mass and energy shows
> >>>> > how
> >>>> > wrong they all were. Now, my formula will be proved right only when I
> >>>> > make a model of an Internal Force Engine. That will be some
> >>>> > experiment! Till then, my work is theoretical, and of no practical
> >>>> > value - yet.
>
> >>>> > > The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree
> >>>> > > with
> >>>> > > accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older
> >>>> > > theory, and not the better theory. Hypotheses contradicting well-
> >>>> > > confirmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any
> >>>> > > other way. Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science,
> >>>> > > while
> >>>> > > uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers
> >>>> > > the
> >>>> > > free development of the individual.
>
> >>>> > So far so good. Yes there can be many theories, but only proper
> >>>> > experiment can decide which one is the most correct at any given
> >>>> > time. Till then, we live in the world of speculation.
>
> >>>> > > There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable
> >>>> > > of
> >>>> > > improving our knowledge.
>
> >>>> > Increasing knowledge is not the same as improving knowledge.
>
> >>>> > The whole history of thought is absorbed into
>
> >>>> > > science and is used for improving every single theory. Nor is
> >>>> > > political interference rejected. It may be needed to overcome the
> >>>> > > chauvinism of science that resists alternatives to the status quo.
> >>>> > > No theory ever agrees with all the facts in its domain,
>
> >>>> I don't see any facts going against the theories of gravitation,
> >>>> electromagnetics, atomic structure, etc. which form the core of hard
> >>>> science. I see lots of facts going against the theories of relativity
> >>>> and quantum and entropy.
>
> >>>> yet it is not
>
> >>>> > > always the theory that is to blame. Facts are constituted by older
> >>>> > > ideologies, and a clash between facts and theories may be proof of
> >>>> > > progress.
>
> >>>> No, it is a proof of regress. It is proof that bad theories are
> >>>> winning out over good theories. It is proof that the establishment is
> >>>> corrupt and forcing people to live in a world of lies.
>
> >>>> It is also a first step in our attempts to find the
>
> >>>> > > principles implicit in familiar observational notions.
> >>>> > > As an example of such an attempt I examine the tower argument which
> >>>> > > the Aristotelians used to refute the motion of the earth.
>
> >>>> Scratch any Einsteinian deep enough, and you will find an
> >>>> Aristotelian. Special relativity can be correct if and only if the
> >>>> Earth is standing still, so much I myself have proved beyond doubt. I
> >>>> suspect that the success of Einstein has some deep (and disgustingly
> >>>> wrong) theological basis.
>
> >>>> The argument
>
> >>>> > > involves natural interpretations - ideas so closely connected with
> >>>> > > observations that it needs a special effort to realise their
> >>>> > > existence
> >>>> > > and to determine their content. Galileo identifies the natural
> >>>> > > interpretations which are inconsistent with Copernicus and replaces
> >>>> > > them by others.
>
> >>>> Huh? Galileo found out with his telescope that Jupiter had moons. So
> >>>> if Jupiter's moons could go around Jupiter, the Earth could go around
> >>>> the Sun. It would then move, that is. Which was what Copernicus was
> >>>> saying, as opposed to the standard Aristotelian theory that the Sun
> >>>> and everything else was going around the Earth.
>
> >>>> The Church did not want to hear about the Earth's mobility, so they
> >>>> made Galileo shut up.
>
> >>>> Again, this was what I learnt in my First Year in Engineering from the
> >>>> Humanities Dept. We read the play "Galileo" by Brecht.
>
> >>>> > > The new natural interpretations constitute a new and highly
> >>>> > > abstract
> >>>> > > observation language. They are introduced and concealed so that one
> >>>> > > falls to notice the change that has taken place (method of
> >>>> > > anamnesis).
> >>>> > > They contain the idea of the relativity of all motion and the law
> >>>> > > of
> >>>> > > circular inertia.
>
> >>>> Here we go again, with wrong theories like relativity and circular
> >>>> inertia trying to out the right ones like gravity. Wrong observations
> >>>> and wrong deductions are crucial for the success of wrong theories.
> >>>> The MM interferometry experiment, with its wrong analysis, done many
> >>>> times by many people, is the biggest proof of this.
>
> >>>> > > Initial difficulties caused by the change are defused by ad hoc
> >>>> > > hypotheses, which thus turn out occasionally to have a positive
> >>>> > > function; they give new theories a breathing space, and they
> >>>> > > indicate
> >>>> > > the direction of future research.
>
> >>>> So long as folks still have wits and guts. What with idiot-box TV,
> >>>> novels and permissiveness, ease of every kind, junk food and
> >>>> establishmentarianism meaning safe and comfortable pensions after
> >>>> retirement for all the slimy sucking-up PhuDs, the very concept of
> >>>> anarchic research has long ceased to exist anywhere on the planet.
> >>>> Except, maybe, in Kazakhstan, where men are ruled by men and not by
> >>>> little girls. Because they have the best potassium, as we know, from
> >>>> Borat.
>
> >>>> > > In addition to natural interpretations, Galileo also changes
> >>>> > > sensations that seem to endanger Copernicus. He admits that there
> >>>> > > are
> >>>> > > such sensations, he praises Copernicus for having disregarded them,
> >>>> > > he
> >>>> > > claims to have removed them with the help of the telescope.
> >>>> > > However,
> >>>> > > he offers no theoretical reasons why the telescope should be
> >>>> > > expected
> >>>> > > to give a true picture of the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Harmony ji:
The very fact that you are "lol" betrays your
own lack of confidence. Forget for a moment whether Gandhi
was from Gujarat or someplace else. In fairness to Gandhi,
he was very open minded in this area, and he was respected by
most Indians of that era, albeit undeservedly.
The encounters with his nieces is vividly described in
Nirmal Kumar Bose's "My Days with Gandhi". When some members
of his team questioned him about the impropriety Gandhi stonewalled
them.
Gandhi's eldest son, Hari did convert into Islam. Those who induced
him
to do so extended the invitation also to Gandhi. But these are trivial
matters.
The important thing is who benefited from his Satya-Ahinsa crap?
Gandhi was conveniently absent when the Muslim mobs, instigated
by Suhravardy, then Gov of Bengal. After 5000 Hindu Sikhs lay
dead in streets, the Hindus organised, the table turned. When the
counter-mobs were looking for Suhravardy, Gandhi suddenly popped up,
and lo, he took this criminal under his wings. He later rewarded
Gandhi
with unusual vituperation when a few months later Gandhi was camped
out at Noakhali on a "peace mission", but that is another story,
also recorded by Bose in his book.
What benefit, may I ask, did Gandhi bring to Hindus and Sikhs
of undivided India? The partition did occur, despite Gandhi's
pronouncements to the contrary ('over my dead body, etc').
The bulk of Muslims who voted for Pakistan stayed in India,
and Hindus remained unprepared till the last moment for the
inevitable because they foolishly believed that Gandhi would pull
a miracle.
If any credit is due, at least in Punjab, it should go to the RSS,
who at tremendous risk rescued thousands of Punjabi Hindus and
Sikhs from the perils, and brought them safely into India. It is
ironical they are branded by the rulers of India as "communal" !
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 3:40 pm
From: "P. Rajah"
harmony wrote:
> lol.
> you are filled with hatred, a sign of a failed weakling trying to blame
> somebody else.
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! Talk about the pot trying to call the kettle black.
You are the poster child for hatred. All the dictionaries have your
picture as the definition of hatred. You dream of hating other people.
You wake up with hatred in your heart. You live and breathe hatred.
Every post of yours drools, froths and dribbles with hatred. If the
ability to hate was taken from you, you would cease to have reason to exist.
> hearing you speak of satyam or shivam or sundaram makes for
> lol.
>
>
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:bSKvm.43530$ze1.28565@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>[.....]
>>
>> So harmony, are you really a Muslim, or at least a Christian, for your
>> great support to the humbug gandi?
>>
>> Why should any self-respecting Hindu have the slightest regard for that
>> hideous traitor, who showed absolutely no concern for Hindus? So many
>> Hindu lives were lost, so many Hindu lives and hopes were and are spoilt,
>> because of gandi's most ineffective, backstabbing, ego-maniacal
>> leadership. Nothing good happened to non-Gujarati Indians because of
>> gandi. To say that he led India to independence, is the biggest lie we had
>> to learn (and unlearn, if you are not a guj-jew).
>>
>> Unless the "Hindu" in question is a fundie-Christian-money-loving liar and
>> hypocrite - a worthy descendant of the Mahabandar of Porbandar, thus.
>> What is still slightly amusing is that you praise gandi while also
>> intensely hating Christians and Muslims who were so loved by gandi.
>>
>> Ah well, if Indians are so foolish to still think well of gandi, that is
>> their business. I have only tried to set things straight, based upon the
>> important understanding that the lovely sequence Satyam Shivam Sundaram
>> must have a decreasing order of importance. Looking deeply into gandi, we
>> do not find anything shivam or satyam under his extremely ugly appearance.
>> A lack of satyam and shivam, thus inevitably leads to the lack of
>> sundaram. However, the lack of sundaram (which is a highly subjective
>> matter, though in the case of gandi no one thinks him sundar appearance
>> wise, so he well may be a standard of ugliness) does not necessarily mean
>> lack of shivam and satyam. What shivam and satyam can be found in any
>> traitor? No amount of gandian moralising, institutional push, media
>> boost, brainwashing etc. can alter the fact that gandi was a traitor. The
>> writings of his killer, now at last released, makes gandi's treachery
>> self-evident to anyone with any sense of fairness. Not that I condone
>> gandi's killing, for that was too extreme. He should have behaved like the
>> brave Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at Bush.
>>
>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: fs/ HOWARD PYLE'S BOOK OF PIRATES, First Edition, 1921
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/03ff8e1ece3c57b2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 9:14 pm
From: "ventureman3"
Complete photos and details for this direct sale are found on Rare Book
Consignments:
http://www.RareBookConsign.com/bookofpirates1921/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: fs/ DUMAS' THE THREE MUSKETEERS - First Edition, 1894
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/b77f2407e1fcbea1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 28 2009 9:29 pm
From: "ventureman3"
First Crowell (NY) Edition in Two Volumes, 1894. Complete photos and details
for this direct sale are found on Rare Book Consignments:
http://www.RareBookConsign.com/threemusketeers1894/
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.arts.books"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.arts.books+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment