Jamie123

On the subject of school bullying, consider the wisdom of that great sage Nigel Molesworth, reported (as any fule kno) by Wiillans and Searle. "Every skool hav a buly who is fat. There are 2 kind of buly: the buly who can run and the buly who cant run for tofee. The first sort is hardly satisfactory but bulys who cant run are beter. You see one swanking up the corridor and you whiz by shouting 'Look at the clot-faced wet!' Buly run after you but you are already disapearing over the horizon. A few days later buly come up to you at yore desk and sa 'You caled me a clot-faced wet what do you mean by it?' You sa "Honestly I would never sa something so uncouth" (fingers crossed) "someone else must think you a clot-faced wet too!" WAM! But you have nimbly skipped away and buly is left cursing. Bulys are pathetic objects I diskard!" [P.S. Spellcheck is a menace when you're trying to quote Molesworth verbatim!]

I think I agree with Eowyn: you need to understand the other person's worldview (*) before you can really ask questions and understand the answers. Otherwise you just end up arguing with them on cross purposes. James White (of Phoenix Arizona) for example says that Mormonism has no meaningful doctrine of Grace. And his arguments make perfect sense - so long as the only "doctrine of Grace" you understand is that espoused by the Reformed Baptists. Other evangelicals rubbish Mormonism by suggesting that Mormons think they can put God in their debt - an idea which they claim is nonsensical. And it is certainly is nonsensical in the absolute sense. But what about within the context of a covenant whose very existence is an act of Grace on the part of God? I remember once talking to an Anglican colleague (who knew nothing of Mormonism) about how the Mormons baptize for the dead: he said the idea was ridiculous because dead people don't have agency. I asked him how he knew this and he didn't have a reason: he just knew that they didn't. It was an assumption he had always had and never questioned. And some Mormons do the exact same thing. A few years ago I had this conversation with some Elders at my door: Elder: You do know, don't you, that we are the true restored Church of Jesus Christ? [A ridiculous question to ask a non-member: if I did know that I would already be a Mormon.] Me: I know that's what you believe. Elder: We don't just believe it. We know it! [Another stupid thing to say: demanding the other person accept a-priori that you're right is no way to start a cross-faith discussion. It's just a conversation-stopper.] Me: (Silence) Elder (realizing his mistake and trying to rescue the situation): Do you believe that the Church of England is the True Church of Jesus Christ? Me: No. I don't. Elder: (genuinely surprised) You don't? Me: No. The True Church of Jesus Christ is invisible. Then came some bluster about "Did Jesus Christ found an invisible church?" but you could tell they were floundering. They had not been expecting me to say "no". If I had said "yes" there would doubtless have been a lot of "gotcha" points about Henry VIII's unsuitability as a Church-Founder and Prophet. But those would only have worked if I had held the same sort of ideas about the C of E as they held about the Mormon Church. Yes...yes...I know I'm speculating about what these two young men were thinking, but I reckon I'm not too far off the truth. My real point is that you need to think outside the box: the sort of "gotcha" questions that Eowyn mentioned are usually rooted in the asker's worldview and are either unanswerable, or else a truthful answer would not be meaningful to the one who asked it. (*) I think I should rephrase that a bit: you don't necessarily need to understand the other person's worldview; you need to be open to having your own worldview challenged. I apologise: that is an important distinction.

What a lovely, lovely song :)

Ditto :) Let's hear it comrades... The People's Flag is deepest red, It shrouded oft our martyred dead, And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold, Their hearts' blood dyed its every fold. Now everyone join in with the chorus... To raise the scarlet standard high. Beneath its folds we'll live and die, Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, We'll keep the red flag flying here!

I'm not sure what "IQ" is, but you're right, it's "Zeno" not "Xeno". I'm thinking of "Xena Warrior Princess"! P.S. Oh, you mean that movie where Walter Matthau plays Einstein? I saw it but a long, long time ago! I shall need to re-watch it.

My physics teacher at school used to tell this joke: (If this sounds laddish, please bear in mind that physics classes in those days were almost exclusively male.) A mathematician and an engineer are at a party together. The mathematician notices a gorgeous blonde at the other side of the room whom he really wants to get to know better. He says to his friend "Wish me luck; I'm going to try to schmooze with that girl over there." The engineer replies "You don't want to seem too interested. You'll turn her right off! Saunter nonchalantly half way over to her and have a root beer. Then go half the distance again and have another drink. Keep on going until you reach her." The mathematician thinks about this for a moment and says "But this is Xeno's arrow! I'm never going to reach her!" "No," replies the engineer. "But you'll get close enough for most practical purposes!"

When you're a pleb like me, on the very bottom rung of the academic hierarchy, it doesn't always pay to engage Important People in casual conversation. When I arrived in the building this morning, I stepped into the lift, and just as the doors were closing who should appear but the Acting Dean. So naturally I held the door open for her. She was thankful and I asked her how she was, and pleasantries were duly exchanged. I asked her if she was still Acting Dean (she has been since the last proper dean retired earlier this year) and she said she would be until January. Then I made my big mistake: I asked her if the new dean had been appointed. She said "Yes, it has been announced. It was in the Vice Chancellor's newsletter!" So now...as if I don't have enough to worry about...the Acting Dean knows that I don't bother to read the Vice Chancellor's newsletters. And this is quite true: I occasionally scan them through for "juicy bits" (like the recent accusation that the university has been encouraging hate speech http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11870429/British-universities-that-give-the-floor-to-extremist-speakers-are-named-and-shamed.html) but mostly they go straight into a file marked "VC's Newsletters". I'm far more interested in what my students are doing than in the high-level politics of the university. But such parochial attitudes can bite you in the butt if you're not careful! Be warned!

I don't think we'll move there - my wife is terrified enough of normal-sized spiders!

The Pope goes on an official visit to New Your City. When he gets off the plane at JFK Airport there is a limousine waiting for him. It is a very nice shiny limousine and the Pope likes the look at it. "Driver," he says to the driver. "I've always wanted to drive a nice shiny limousine like this, but I've never got to do it. Please will you let me drive it to the hotel?" "I can't let you do that Your Holiness," says the driver. "You're the Pope. You're supposed to sit comfortably in the back and wave to people while I do the driving." "Oh please!" says the Pope. "I'm so sick of sitting in the back and waving. It's all I ever get to do! Just this once I want to drive for a change!" The driver thinks about this for a moment; he's sure this is against the rules, but this is the Pope. "All right," he says. "But please Your Holiness, be careful!" "Oh I will!" says the Pope eagerly, jumping into the driver's seat and revving the engine. Reluctantly the driver climbs into the back and off they go. At first the Pope drives carefully, obeying all the street signs, but gradually the power of this beautiful car goes to his head. He wants to see how fast he can make it go! The speedometer creeps slowly up: 35mph, 40mph...50mph! Eventually he is driving through Manhattan at 60 mph, and he is pulled over by a traffic cop. The cop takes one look at him, turns almost as white as the Pope's robes, and radios his superior officer at the station. "Excuse me Lieutenant," he says. "I've pulled someone over for speeding, but...well, he's someone rather important." "Who?" asks the lieutenant. "Is it the Mayor?" "No," says the cop, "More important than that!" "Well...is it the State Governor?" "No sir....more important than that even!" "Don't tell me you've stopped the President!" "No...even more important than him!" "Well....who?" The cop pauses before replying. "Well sir....I think it must be God, because the Pope is driving!"

I think it was The Big Bang Theory rather than Frasier

This makes me think of "At the Back of the North Wind" by George MacDonald. It is (***SPOILER ALERT**) a story of a boy called Diamond who is dying. He meets a goddess-like woman who is a personification of the North Wind; sometimes she is a huge giantess and sometimes she is tiny (just as the wind varies in size) and she takes him away on a magical adventure. There is one point in the story where Diamond has to walk on a high precipice; he is afraid but says he will try to be brave. The North Wind replies (I've paraphrased it slightly): "To try to be brave is to be brave - a coward who tries to be brave is braver than the brave man who never had to try". Maybe to try to do our best is to do our best.

Maybe so, but I don't expect them to pull sledges to the South Pole. I mean....that's just plain silly!

And 2. ?

We could hang out over a cool glass of nectar and ambrosia - that would be quite something! :)

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)