Jamie123

You could say the same thing about Hamlet or King Lear. Does that mean there's no value to be gained from considering the characters and their motivations?

It's interesting that it was the worldlier of the two sisters who was most resistant to Mr. Reed's philosophy. While her colleague was ready to deny Christ (choosing the "disbelief" door) hoping that this would get her to safety, she was the one who remained resolute.

I'm not suggesting it isn't a good rule - only that it must be a fairly recent innovation. Either that or its a rule which was until recently widely flouted.

This must be a relatively new rule because back in the 1990s when I was investigating LDS, sister missionaries visited me many times without there being anyone other than me and them present. This was before I was married, when I lived on my own (aside from my cats). This happened over several years, with at least three different pairs of sisters, and in two different stakes, so you cannot argue this was a one-off lapse. The last time sister missionaries visited my home was in 1998, and they sat together on my couch without anyone else other than me present. And no I didn't invite them into my cellar. (For one thing I didn't have a cellar.) Having said that, this movie serves as a cautionary tale about why this rule is probably a good one.

Well well well ... that's the creepiest movie I've seen for a long time...

When my father was a young man he and my mother spent a few years in Aden, which was not then part of Yemen but a British protectorate. He was a volunteer part time policeman. This was potentially quite a dangerous job - more dangerous than he let on to my mother, 'coz otherwise there's no way she'd have let him do it. He had a pistol, but (if I remember the story correctly) he was always told to practice shooting it from the hip. The thinking was that by the time you'd lifted your gun to eye level to get a better aim, the other guy would have shot you. I don't believe he ever actually fired it in anger, but he came close a few times.

I'm in the movie theatre now waiting for it to start. Hope it's not too scary! *shudder* They are playing the theme music to The Lord of the Rings. The dadada da da da daaa theme.

I've also had this same question at the back of my mind. Many of the reports mention "sexual abuse", while concentrating on the "caning till they bled" aspect. A sadist might get sexual gratification from thrashing people till they bled - but you're right it doesn't necessarily follow. In his autobiography, Roald Dahl said that when he was at Repton School the principal - Geoffrey Fisher - used to beat kids with a cane until they bled. (In fact he had to give them a towel afterwards to mop up the blood.) Fisher later went into the clergy and eventually became Archbishop of Canterbury, and was the same Archbishop who crowned the late Queen. Dahl cited this as one reason why he was not a Christian. But I've never heard anyone suggest that Fisher was a sexual abuser. Perhaps he was, but severe caning was in those days par for the course. Some senior students (called prefects) were allowed to cane younger kids for pretty much any reason they wanted. Though it's clear there was sexual abuse too - as we read in C.S.Lewis' accounts of school (though he was a bit earlier than Dahl and at a different school). Returning to Smyth though, I don't know whether the caning itself was the "sexual abuse" (and some people do get sexual gratification from such things) or whether it was in addition to it. It seems a rather morbid question to research. I would rather concentrate on the lessons the minister in the video pointed out, for example we shouldn't hide such things for the sake of protecting God's reputation. God is quite capable of looking after himself. P.S. My morbid curiosity did get the better of me in the end. Brett Murphy in his YouTube video of this is saying there was "no sexual element" to what Smyth did. I don't know if this is true or not, but if it is there has clearly been some misreporting. (Which is hardly surprising - the media always does want to find sex at the bottom of everything.)

Just to give you the background: 1. John Smyth was a lay preacher in the Church of England who did a lot of work with young people in the 1980s and 90s. 2. John Smyth was sexually abusing many of those young people including thrashing them with sticks until they bled in a specially soundproofed garden shed. 3. Many people knew (or at least suspected) that this was going on but kept quiet about it for fear of damaging the Church's reputation. 4. One such person was Justin Welby who eventually became Archbishop of Canterbury. (He claims he didn't hear about Smyth's activities until 2013, but even then did very little about it.) 5. An investigation was eventually held on the matter, but Smyth died before its findings were released. 6. Now the report is public, Justin Welby has resigned as Archbishop of Canterbury. It's worth noting that there are other reasons why Welby is unpopular in certain sections of the Church - particularly his support of homosexual marriage. This has been conflated with the Smyth affair and several other issues too. This guy says some interesting things about it. There are some ideas for us all to reflect on, regardless of our denomination.

Ok "always" was hyperbole. I'm sure the history books will reveal other criminals who escaped punishment by election. As for felons elected to high office, Hitler was one. That went really well for Germany, didn't it? Yes, I'm sure there are enough skeletons in my closet that anyone who cared enough to be bothered could probably get me convicted of something. Does that make me feel better? No. Would I fight it? Probably. Would I expect "different rules" for my acquittal? No.

We could argue about this all day. You are still essentially saying that in your opinion the case against Trump was flawed and the verdict can therefore be ignored. (You can couch that in phrases like "no law exists" but it is still your opinion.) I still say that you are not qualified to make that determination. There are a lot of people here in the UK who think that Lucy Letby is innocent. There is in my opinion some merit to some of their arguments. However, I could have no possible objection to her being described as a "convicted mass murderer" (which is what she is - she was tried for mass murder and convicted) nor would I countenance "different rules" being applied to exonerate her. If "different rules" are to be applied to nullify Trump's conviction, why stop there? Why not have "different rules" to nullify the convictions of everyone who some people think were unfairly treated in the courts?

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But either way, his guilt is a "fact in law" until the verdict is overturned. That's how it would be for anyone else, and that's how it ought to be for Trump.

I am not saying that he did break any laws. But whether he did or not, a qualified court of law has determined that he did. You and I are quite within our rights to to say that that decision was wrong. But that does not alter the outcome of the case. If the ruling against Trump is to be overturned it should be by a court - not by us.

You're still essentially saying that the conviction doesn't count because YOU disagree with it. And you may be right. Perhaps the case against Trump really is a load of bunkum. (I'm not saying that it isn't.) But it is not for you or me or Trump (or even "People") to make that determination. It is for a court to decide. Maybe Trump was targeted unfairly for political reasons. But that again is a defence that should be presented to a court. "People" has no business to be doing any such thing. If they didn't think he was guilty they should not have charged him in the first place. But they did charge him and the court agreed he was guilty. What is "People" saying now? "Sorry, we had a stupid attack, and the judge and jury were too stupid to see how stupid we were being. Please excuse us now while we go and take our anti-stupid pills." There is only two good reasons for "People" to drop the charges: new evidence or new argument that Trump is innocent. "He was elected" don't make no matter.

P.S. the whole situation reminds me a bit of this... They missed out my favourite bit though. When Marge won't support Mr. Burns: Homer: I bet you didn't even know how many eyes a fish had before the press blew this out if all proportion! Marge: (Trademark growl.)

That's why I'm an incurable romantic. It doesn't really matter what he was convicted of. The important thing is that he was convicted by a properly qualified court (kangaroo or otherwise). Many a person has been convicted of more serious crimes than those of which Trump was convicted, on much flimsier evidence. And the remedy has always been appeal to a higher court. Not election of the defendant to public office.

For all I know you may be correct. But it was a legally constituted court of law nonetheless. And I dare say you're correct that a President (while he remains president) can do no wrong. But to set the verdict aside now sends the message that if you're powerful enough then a court verdict means nothing if you disagree with it. (And that's what you're really doing when you call a court "kangaroo".) If Trump expects others to respect the law he should lead by example. P.S. Good to talk to you again Vort. I've been been away from the forum a few weeks. Hope all is going well.

Donald Trump is a convicted felon. He may also, for all I know, be a "very innocent man". However, there are many other convicted felons who claim to be "very innocent men". But are their claims of innocence alone going to get them out of prison? Not on your nelly! Why should Trump be any different? Shouldn't the President Elect be setting a good example, instead of trusting that the rules which apply to "ordinary people" (whether guilty or innocent) don't apply to him? Perhaps I'm an incurable romantic, but I'm still hoping that the sentencing goes ahead, and that the judge tosses every argument based on "he's the President" straight into the wastepaper bin, and gives Trump exactly the same sentence any non-President Elect would have gotten for the same crimes. Of course, it Trump successfully appeals the verdict then that sentence should quite rightly be annulled. But if the verdict is set aside now simply "coz he's the president" it is hard to see how Trump, the Republican Party or the US system of justice can have any credibility ever again.

TODAY IS INTERNATIONAL WOMBAT DAY!!!!

Laura Tobin has a degree in physics and meteorology. "One shoe off and one shoe on...diddle diddle dumpling...etc."

That is very interesting - thank you Zil! I'll watch the whole thing later. It's interesting that feminism wants to get rid of the mother, because (to state the obvious) without mothers there would be no more people! The same could be said about MGTOWs.

Pause for thought... I am totally new to the Kalevala, and have only read as far as Canto 6. My only other sources are Keith Bosley's introduction to his translation (which is rather highbrow and intended for proper scholars - not me!) as well as Tolkien's version of the Kullervo cycle, so I'm anxious to avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect. These reflections may be utter rubbish, so beware... The main characters in the early Cantos are the Air-Girl and her son Väinämöinen. In Finnish, the Air-Girl is called Ilmatar and sometimes this is treated as a proper name, but it really just means "female air". She has various other names: Nature Daughter, Sky Maiden, Ocean Mother. I find her arc so fascinating. She begins as a totally helpless victim, with no control over her situation - a victim of rape no less! She enters a period of latency, as she swims through the primordial ocean. But then everything changes when the duck arrives. She is no longer passive but strenuously active. She becomes the Master Builder of the cosmos - paralleling Christ/Jehovah in the role of creator. And yet she is not God. (Or at least not God with a capital G. You could call her a goddess, but she is subordinate to "The Old One" - the "All Father" who is only occasionally mentioned.) Following her labours of creation, she goes into labour - the supreme act of creation. Perhaps the creation of her son and the creation of the world are intended to mirror each other. But this burst of active creativity ends quickly. She remains powerful and important, but as a facilitator and adviser. Others now play the active parts. When the Earth is threatened by the Beast, she acts as liaison with the Sea People who can help. Väinämöinen continues to turn to her, and she gives him advice. Is this perhaps the ideal arc of femininity as conceived in ancient Finland? She suffers, she endures in passivity, for a short time she creates and then she steps back and let's others take control of what she has created? It's myth of course (and second-hand myth too!) but myths don't come out of nowhere. They mean something. When I've read more I'll no doubt have changed my ideas, but if anyone has any thoughts I'd love to hear them.

The saga continues.... Väinämöinen finds seven grains lying on a marten skin by the seashore. He clears out a glade in the forest (leaving just one tree -a birch - for birds to perch on) and and plants the seeds. They grow to become the first ever field of barley. People multiply across the Earth. Although the Air-Girl and the Beast and other such beings are not seen anymore, there are stll plenty of magicians. None of them is greater than Väinämöinen. One day Väinämöinen is challenged to a magic duel by a young wizard called Joukahainen. The upstart boasts he can easily beat Väinämöinen, but he is no match for the Air-Girl's son. He is soon trapped in a magic swamp, and at Väinämöinen's mercy. He offers Väinämöinen his best horse, his best sword, the best animals from his farm if only he will release him, but Väinämöinen cares nothing for these things. In desperation he offers Väinämöinen his sister's hand in marriage, at which Väinämöinen finally relents. He releases Joukahainen, who returns home to tell his family. He expects his mother to be furious, but to his surprise she is delighted. Nothing would please her more than to have Väinämöinen as a son-in-law! However, Joukahainen's sister Aino is not pleased at all: she tells everone she does NOT want to marry Väinämöinen, but no one takes the slightest notice of her. Aino's mother tells her to put on her best clothes and jewels - those made for her, for her own wedding by the Sun Daughter and the Moon Daughter. Aino does so, but wanders off on her own. After several days, she comes to the seashore where she sees three mermaids playing in the waves. "I will be the fourth!" she says. She takes off her beautiful clothes and jewels and jumps into the ocean. A hare is chosen to take the news of Aino's drowning back to her family. He arrives just as the maids of the house are taking a sauna. (Yes...the Finns had saunas, even back then!) The maids want to cook the hare, but he tells them he has an important message for their mistress. When Aino's mother hears the news she sobs and sobs and sobs for hours, but nothing will bring her daughter back. And there's the moral of the story, made quite explicit: "Never force your kids to marry people they don't want to marry, otherwise they might end up drownded!" We're on to Canto 5 now, would you believe? One day Väinämöinen goes fishing in his little boat. He catches a very strange looking fish, but soon discovers it is not a fish at all: it is Aino transformed into a mermaid. She tells him "You're a foolish old man! You only ever wanted me as your skivvy. You lost me once and now you've lost me again!" She jumps out of the boat and is gone. In grief, Väinämöinen cries out to his mother, the Air-Girl, whom he believes to be long dead. But she replies, assuring him she is still alive, and gives him dating advice. She says he should look for a new wife amongst the maidens of the North, who are far lovelier than any he has seen before!

OK...Episode 2... The Hideous Beast does terrible distruction on the earth, burning and reducing everything to cinders. But worst of all it makes a new tree grow - a mighty oak that blocks out the light of the sun and moon and casts the world into darkness. Väinämöinen believes that his mother can help. She has gone back to lying in the ocean, and had become friends with the powerful Sea People. So he calls out to her... The Air-Girl sends a Sea-Man to help her son. He is not very big - barely as tall as a man's thumb, or the span of a woman's hand. Väinämöinen wonders how much use he will be, until the Sea-Man begins to grow. He grows and grows until he is an enormous giant - so tall that his eyes are six feet apart! The Sea-Man swings his mighty axe and fells the tree with one chop! Light returns and the trees and plants can grow again! The world is saved! (Still not finished Canto 2. There's going to have to be a Part 3!)