Jamie123

No...this is *not* more drivel about the Flat Earth people and how Antarctica is really a giant ice-wall holding the oceans in and spilling out into...well presumably into Nifelheim and the roots of Ygdrassil (if you're into that sort of thing). This is something far more important... The fact is that Antarctic exploration makes me VERY angry! Why? Well there are two very important reasons... Firstly because Roald Amundsen ate his dogs! They were nice cute husky dogs that anyone else would have been glad to have for a pet. Good, loyal, faithful, hard-working dogs who pulled his sleds all the way to the south pole, allowing him to beat Scott (who despite his poor organization played things fair as far as doggy-woof-woofs went). And how did that Norwegian git repay them? By using them not only as a source of propulsion but also as a source of food. He and his men ate almost the whole lot of them! While Scott was freezing and Oats was going out for "some time", the Norwegians were stuffing themselves with husky-burgers and fries! Amundsen brought only ONE dog back to Norway. You can see it today, stuffed in a museum in Olso. If you ask me Amundsen should be disqualified, and the credit given to Scott instead! (Please excuse me while I go and grind my teeth.) But there's another reason as well... When I was 10 years old, my teacher (I'll call him Mr. Keswick - which is very nearly his name) told us the story of Robert Falcon Scott, and how he used horses to pull his sleds to the pole. I asked him why he didn't use mechanical tractors to pull the sleds. Mr. Keswick looked at me and said "For goodness sake this was in 1910! Did they have mechanical tractors then?" Now I had no idea whether they had mechanical tractors in 1910, but the class was already looking at me with amusement, so instead of confessing my ignorance I said "no". Mr.Keswick then led the whole class in a good old laugh at "stupid old Jamie". Well, that summer, when our family was on holiday, I was given some spending money by my Ma and Da which I used to buy a book about Antarctic exploration. (I bought a book on dinosaurs too, but that doesn't come into this story.) On the centre pages it had a cut-out penguin which you made to stand up by pasting it to a toilet roll middle. It also had the story of Scott's and Amundsen's expeditions and - in the middle of one page was a picture of a vehicle with caterpillar tracks, and a caption underneath reading "Motorized sled used by Scott on his 1910 expedition to the south pole!" Check it out here: http://mp.natlib.govt.nz/image/?imageId=images-18720&profile=access So Scott DID attempt to use "tractors". He had two of them. Admittedly neither of them reached the South Pole, but my question had been quite valid! Despite the teacher-induced snickering all around the classroom, it wasn't "stupid old Jamie" at all. It was "stupid old Mr. Keswick!" So I got a train straight back home, went to Mr.Keswick's house, grabbed him by the front of his shirt, pushed the picture in his face and shouted "Look at this, Mush! Who's stupid now???!!!" Well ... OK so the last bit of the story is pure fantasy but I certainly did it in my head!

I agree - let's winge about BMW drivers instead!

Some of them appear to be Christian fundamentalists, pointing out to other (genuine) Christian fundamentalists that the Bible appears to teach that the Earth is flat (statements like "4 corners of the earth" etc.), and thus showing them to be really in the same camp as the theistic evolutionists they oppose. But there are others who seem to have no religious or Biblical agenda. This one is quite interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGpwLYlVBh4 - it is almost certainly a satire, proposing the Flat Earth as a thought experiment. It's quite a fun exercise to work out what the deliberate flaws are in each argument; some are easy to spot, but others are more challenging! (Look for example the diagram of Einstein standing on the beach at 9:00. It seems reasonable at first glance, but what is wrong with it? I must admit it took me a little while before the penny dropped!)

I'm struggling at the moment to understand whether these guys are trolls or whether they really believe what they're arguing, but either way there seems to be a lot of them on YouTube at the moment. Here's a very typical example (there are many, many more): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uyd_9ovplXc A few times I've jumped in with comments explaining why what they are saying is garbage, but if they really are trolls that'll be exactly what they want! Even Kent Hovind (newly released from prison and back on the war-path) sounds rational by comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlhPmciWeiU (go to 5:50) And we all know what he's like! I suspect that in this case he has the right kind of attitude.

I would start with 90 and count down nine tens from 156 to get 66. But I need to subtract 3 less than 90, this so the answer is 3 bigger than 66, so 69. (This is not the way I would teach anyone to do it though.)

"Middle state" makes me think of Alexander Pope: So is it the great benefit or the great curse of mankind...to be more than a beast but less than a god?

You've gotta love these versions.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1rXcm2mbKI

A.A. Milne wrote a brilliant poem about procrastination. This is me all over...

Just for the record I was not arguing that pornography/masturbation is globally worse than adultery (far less rape) but that there are (perhaps) certain categories in which it might be rated worse. I totally agree with Folk Prophet when he says that adultery corrupts two instead of just one, but this is a different issue from the one I was attempting to address. As Folk Prophet points out the distinction is in some respects moot: all sins are hateful to God and we should avoid doing them. But nevertheless I don't think it harms us to recognize that some sins are more dangerous than others, and in different ways. Some aspects of some sins veer closer than others to the innocent gifts of which they are perversions. Quoting C.S. Lewis again (himself paraphrasing Plato): "Eros turned upside down, blackened, distorted, and filthy, still bore traces of his divinity". To consider this possibility is not to advocate sin but to try to understand it beyond the most simplistic level of "sin=bad". Studying the enemy's strategy is not the thing as turning traitor! But returning to the original question of "porn worse than adultery", I've found on many occasions that ideas which sound outrageous at first hearing - particularly in the mouth of an accuser who presents them out of context can, with a slight shift in perspective, mean something quite different from what you first thought you heard. I have a particular example of this in mind, which I think most people here will agree with. It's too complex to go into here and now though - it needs a thread of its own.

I haven't read all the messages on this thread (there are a lot) so someone may already have come up with this; but I can see one way in which adultery is preferable to porn. The viewing of porn (which is usually accompanied by masturbation) is a purely selfish act. As C.S. Lewis said, it... Actual physical adultery does have the advantage of requiring an act of giving/sacrifice to another. It is thus not entirely selfish. (Mostly selfish, I dare say, but not entirely.) Having said that, I can imagine real adultery creating messier and harder-to-get-out-of situations. It is (speaking purely physically) less easy to step away from. Pornographic magazines, once disposed of do not usually return to haunt you. They don't talk to newspaper reporters or demand blackmail money, as a spurned ex-lover might.

I didn't post a link before because in the past I've been given "warning points" for posting links to websites that include anti-mormon propaganda. (And who knows what's to be found on WikiLeaks?) On the other hand... (does impression of Tevye from "Fiddler on the Roof")... plenty of people post links to YouTube, which has a lot of antimormonism on it. On the other hand... When have rules ever been fully consistent in their formulation or application? (I'm not just talking about this message board... I'm talking about rules in general.) On the other hand... You are a board moderator, so if I get into trouble I can always blame you! So here is the link: https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Mormon_Church_Handbook_of_Instructions_(1999)

The only LDS music I could name would be The Osmonds .... which brings me to a slight dilemma that has hung over my head for some time. My wife is a terrific fan of Donny and Marie - they were her "rock" through many difficult times in her early life, and she has always dreamed of meeting them. She's hinted that it would be wonderful to meet them on (or near) her 50th birthday, which is a little over 3 years away. So quite how I'm going to pull this off I don't know... With everything my wife has been through she deserves this, but it's not like I can just ask them round for tea and expect them to come. (If they went to tea with everyone who wanted them to go to tea with them, they would never do anything but go to tea with people.) Maybe they'd send a signed picture or something... at some point soon(ish) I need to bite the bullet and start searching for their addresses.

I've always liked this passage from Roald Dahl's The Twits:

This from the "Mormon Church Handbook of Instructions" (on Wikileaks - I won't post a link because I suspect it would be against the board rules): (Strange that it's an either/or between "discipline imposed" or "no disciplinary council held". Is there never a disciplinary council in which the accused member is acquitted?) However this was from 1999, so it may since have been ruled unconstitutional. Either way it goes on to say this:

From what I've read, I understand that church leaders are not supposed to accept resignations from members when disciplinary matters are involved, but there is some disagreement about whether this violates the Freedom of Religion (in the US). I'm inclined to think that it doesn't because (i) F or R supposedly applies to government only and (ii) it restricts nobody's freedom because a resigning member could easily say: "I have resigned and am no longer a member - if the Church wishes to pretend that I'm still a member and go through a private charade of excommunicating me, then what's that to me?" However this would only apply to people resigning with no intention of going back.

Indeed. Also an unaccredited school is not necessarily a diploma mill - as the Daily Mirror found out to their cost a few years ago! Having said that though, I think there's something to be said for the British system, where a school can only call itself a "university" and award degrees like "master of arts" etc. with permission from the queen. You know where you are then.

O it was a top hat all right! He borrowed it from Lincoln :)

I can better imagine Joseph Smith putting that stone into a top hat and looking at it than using it as a spectacle lens. A Mormon missionary once assured me that the "stone-in-hat" story was an invention of South Park. When I pointed out that it predated South Park by quite a long spell, he still insisted it was false.

Or this...

I found this website of dying words of the famous: http://www.corsinet.com/braincandy/dying.html. Here are some that I specially liked: It's all been very interesting. ~~ Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, writer, d. 1762 Go away. I'm all right. ~~ H. G. Wells, novelist, d. 1946 Either that wallpaper goes, or I do. ~~ Oscar Wilde, writer, d. November 30, 1900 I owe much; I have nothing; the rest I leave to the poor. ~~ François Rabelais, writer, d. 1553 Get my swan costume ready. ~~ Anna Pavlova, ballerina, d. 1931 I'd hate to die twice. It's so boring. ~~ Richard Feynman, physicist, d. 1988 I've had a hell of a lot of fun and I've enjoyed every minute of it. ~~ Errol Flynn, actor, d. October 14, 1959 P.S. I just read something else on a different page. Apparently Queen Marie Antoinette's last words as she faced the guillotine were: "Pardon me Monsieur, I did not do it on purpose!" (She had just stepped on her executioner's foot.)

LOL - I suppose it depends what they were forced to read. You could always take away their "Captain Underpants" and make the read "Origins of Federal Income Tax: 1861-1930". Seriously though, my daughter does love to read - and I think that may be partly because I read to her every night when she was little - and occasionally I still do. We've done The Hobbit, the Wizard of Oz, all the Narnia books, most of Roald Dahl, Little House on the Prairie, Tom's Midnight Garden, all the Beatrix Potter books, The Wind in the Willows, Alice in Wonderland, The Railway Children.... We also love the "Just William" stores by Richmal Crompton - though dating from the 1930s they are certainly very politically incorrect! (I'm sure some of those stories would not even be allowed to be published these days!) Then again, my daughter is not a boy so this is all a bit off-topic.

On Saturday I went to see the LDS temple near Crawley. (They call it the "London" temple, though its actually quite a way south of London.) I've been meaning to go and have a look at it for some years, and with my wife and daughter away and with only housework to do otherwise I thought I'd drive over and see it. Soon after I got there, I met a missionary couple who told me they were from Utah. They were very nice - but unfortunately I've totally forgotten their name. It's a shame because maybe some of you guys know them. (Yes I know there are a lot of people in Utah, but I've known stranger coincidences.) The man said to me "Beautiful, isn't it?" I had to admit it was impressive, but not exactly beautiful - it is basically just an enormous box with a spire at one end, typical of the 1950s when it was built. Still, the clean limestone shining against the blue sky is not entirely without its beauty. I had quite a long talk with this couple. The husband was a retired professor from the Business School at BYU. We must have talked for over an hour - about things like the nature of sin and grace. We agreed about a lot of things. Of course they gave me the usual message about "pray about the Book of Mormon" but they wouldn't have been doing their job if they hadn't; they were interested in what I thought and believed too, and it was a very pleasant morning. The whole place is swarming with missionaries - mostly young people (I think the two I spoke to were the only mature missionaries there) - I expect many of them were in training. Anyway now I've seen it :) I took a lot of pictures with my I-phone, but this is one of the few that doesn't have my thumb in view!

This was a great comedy series starring the late Leonard Rossiter (one of the best!) It was a show that tugs on the heart-strings as well as the funny bone. I’m not sure how well known it in the US; I know for a fact there was a US version of it (“Reggie” starring Richard Mulligan – another great comic actor) but I don’t believe it was a success. I recently discovered it on YouTube, were you can see every episode that was ever made: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2XhMtkmxIZVpvIuT9SJybQ If you don’t want to bother, here is my synopsis/interpretation: Reginald Iolanthe Perrin (played by the late Leonard Rossiter) is a senior business executive who has come to a crisis in his life; he hates his job and especially his boss – the tyrannical CJ (John Barron) with his irritating repetition of “I didn’t get where I am today by…[whatever he is disapproving of]” and his heavily overused practical joke – chairs which make rude noises whenever someone sits on them. (Everyone must pretend to find this funny if they want to keep their jobs!) Reggie is also irritated by his family: especially his son-in-law Tom, an ultra-serious estate agent who brews disgusting wine (which Reggie is forced to drink), smokes a vile pipe and encourages his children to talk about their bodily functions. There is also his crazy soldier brother-in-law Jimmy (Geoffrey Palmer) who is forever appearing on Reggie’s doorstep to scrounge food. Clearly on the verge of a nervous breakdown, Reggie becomes ever more eccentric: he attempts to have an affair with his secretary (luckily circumstances conspire to prevent this), then hosts a “dinner party” with no food. After a conference speech in which he insults everyone in the room (including CJ) he goes to the beach, takes off all his clothes and hopes everyone will think he has drowned himself. But Reggie is still very much alive. He travels across England adopting a variety of disguises and personas. (Where he gets his money from now that he no longer officially exists is never explained.) Finding himself still unhappy he gravitates back to his old neighbourhood where his wife Elizabeth is already planning to re-marry. Reggie re-introduces himself to his friends and family wearing a wig and false beard and calling himself “Martin”. They all seem to be fooled by the disguise, though his similarity to Reggie is noted. He cannot resist revealing his true identity to his grown-up daughter Linda, but swears her to secrecy. Elizabeth meanwhile seems fascinated by Martin/Reggie and soon breaks off her engagement to pursue romance with him. Eventually Elizabeth and “Martin” are married. At the wedding reception Linda feels compelled to break her word and tell her mother who her new husband really is. However she is surprised to learn that Elizabeth knew all along: “I always knew he was Reggie,” she says. “He wasn’t very happy as Reggie, so perhaps he’ll be more happy as Martin.” Here the first series ends. There were two more series; they have their funny moments and are worth watching, but they lack the darkness - and hence the poignancy - of the original. Leonard Rosseter portrays the angst of Reggie’s decline so perfectly – if you have experienced anything similar yourself you will recognize it in his performance. There is one particular episode where Reggie – alone in the house and desperately in need of company - repeatedly telephones Elizabeth (who is staying with her mother) only to be brushed off by her every time. The episode ends with the expression of mental agony on Reggie’s face – not a funny ending at all, but a very powerful one. When I first saw this show as a child (back in 1976) I didn’t really understand it. I found it funny enough, but only on a “whatever will the funny man do next?” kind of level. I saw it again in my early 20’s, but still it didn’t really sink in. I think you need to have tasted middle-age before you can really “get” what the show is about.

Sorry - I can't resist having another rant about this: the nonsense about "parallel shadows converging" meaning that the light isn't coming from the sun but from some huge studio light nearby. Has it never occurred to any of these guys that you get exactly the same effect here on earth, and it's caused by perspective? And what about crepuscular rays? ("Jacob's Ladder") We've all seen them many times: The conspiracy theorists will tell us the sun is floating just a few hundred feet above the clouds! P.S. On the subject of crepuscular rays, I can't help but think of Emily Dickenson's poem about them (http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/174992). Not to mention the song "Jacob's Ladder" by Rush (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnkwhHOjv-4). I saw that performed live in 1980 - for the part where the clouds open they had crepuscular rays formed in dry ice shining out from the stage - it was totally awesome. P.P.S. Now I look at Emily Dickenson's poem again I notice she never specifically mentions Jacob's Ladder - only "a certain slant of light". The image has always been in my mind whenever I've read that poem though. Interesting...

When I was a kid, the father of one of my friends was an amateur radio enthusiast. He was an amazing guy - he built most of his own radio kit, and other gadgets like a digital clock which used the mains AC frequency for its timing signal (though I'm not sure how accurate it could have been). He was a motorcycle enthusiast and (believe it or not) was a nurse for his day-job! I often used to talk to him, and he would lend me books on electronics to read. (I can see one of them right now on the shelf above my desk, unreturned after nearly 40 years! Guilt...guilt...guilt!) For a while I was determined to become a radio ham myself - though I never actually did. Anyway, the word "ham" often struck me as odd. I always vaguely thought it was from (H)AMateur - but now I look it up I find I'm wrong. It was originally a pejorative term used by professional radio operators for people who dabbled in it for a hobby - a bit like "ham actors" or "ham-fisted incompetents". A bit like the word "Mormon" - that was also a nickname given to LDS people by non-members, but it's become so adopted by the Church that they object to it being applied to any LDS-based church other than themselves - especially the ones that still practice polygamy!