The "tax act" in "(spurred on more by the tax act and other monetary concerns than any tea in Boston or noble concerns)" should read "stamp tax." Typing too fast. Stupid fingers.
And for those who've never actually studied U.S. History (because it didn't take place on a computer, and can't be coded - or can it?), the stamp tax was a tax enacted by the English parliament that said all printed matter in the British colonies should have a "stamp" placed on it, showing that a tax had been paid. Like a sales tax on printed matter. The British government felt the corporations, and not the government who "owned" the land, were making all the money from the colonies, and they wanted a piece of the action. All these farmers and marketeers were making good money on trade and England wasn't seeing a farthing (or ha'penny, or crown, or whatever they had back then). No different than any ridiculous tax we pay today, and get nothing back from (or nothing that actually helps anyone, in any case). When the stamp tax was enacted, those who didn't like it attacked the homes of the tax men, viciously beating and even killing these people and their family members, burning their homes, etc. Thus, England sent in more troops to stop the little riots and violence, enacting more strict policies on "homeland security," and things grew from there...
The U.K. has documents and precedents much older than the Consitution, and such documents, referred to by the likes of Thomas Jefferson as "Common Law" (as in, when he says, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of common law."). The first constitutional type document ever in the colonies, based largely on the Magna Carta, was written aboard ship by a bunch of people about to settle a plantation, given to them by the monarchy, in what's now part of Connecticut. The current U.S. Constitution is not anything near one simple, easy to read page, and is constantly growing, being ripped to shreds, and has, since it was first written, been in a state of flux. But that aside...
The U.K. civil war which I believe you're referring to (there were actually several, were there not?) would seem to be the one in which Cromwell, a Puritan, along with other Puritan members of Parliament, had the king assassinated. Not much of a civil war, there. This also coincided with the slowing down of the "Great Migration" of colonists to the New England colonies from England, as many who had been coming were Puritans funded by Cromwell's buddies. Cromwell then declared that the monarchy was over, and there would be no King, but proclaimed himself "Supreme Protector" (aka, dictatorial monarch). He, along with the other Puritan members of parliament, then had the non-Puritan members "removed." And they controlled everything. On his death, his son was installed as the next Supreme protector, and the people did _not_ rejoice. Soon after, the Monarchy was restored as it had been before Cromwell's "civil war." This all happened nearly 100 years before the colonies revolted, however, and the next 100 years were spent with England fighting France (and anyone else) over territory in or around the colonies.
Cromwell was not liked by the British people. He served only his puritan friends, and was just as vicious as any of the monarchs. Recently, while in London, I was told that he was so disliked, that after the monarchy was restored, his body was actually dug up, beheaded, and his head put on a stake. Whether this story is true or not, I don't know, but it shows that people _really_ didn't like him, it seems.
As for the colonies of the new world, they were granted by kings, lords, and corporations, and new land (or land taken from other colonies) was administered and gifted to others. Oftne a lord would grant land to one overlord, then decided they didn't like them, and give it to another (who signed it over to Colonists despite people already being there from the previous grants). Only some of the colonies were British, though by the time of the Revolution, the British colonists had, by force and violence, driven out most of those from other nations. Vermont, for instance, was given to New York by one person, and to Massachusetts by another. This despite the land being granted to the people who actually lived there before either of these grants (a direct ancestor of mine was head of a party that had arranged for, and been granted, 3 such townships by the King, though he, and most of the other grantees, never actually moved there). Thus, the Green Mountain boys were born. This is also where Benedict Arnold was much maligned. He fought hard with the Green Mountain boys, for Vermont and to keep out the other colonies that were invading. It was the British King who gave them this land, and supported them in keeping the homes they'd been in for quite awhile. When the colonial upstarts led by Washington (who thought it was appropriate to take, without asking, anything and everything he wanted for his war) decided (spurred on more by the tax act and other monetary concerns than any tea in Boston or noble concerns) to start their little action, many people in Vermont still felt loyal to England. Why? Because the upstart colonies had been killing them and driving them from their homes. Why should they support that? So Benedict Arnold, who until then had been a great colonial hero (from the many French and India
I have several thousand books, as well, and ran into this same problem. Not only was I accidentally buying multiple copies of some references or classic fiction or literature, but could never find anything. In need of some system of organization, as well as a way to cart a list around with me when going to bookstores, I began a similar quest.
Sadly, I have no room large enough to line with shelves for housing a proper library, so things have to be split up into various rooms. In this situation, trying to go with a standard organizing system is impossible. There's also the case that certain types of books belong in certain rooms. Geek books in the computer office, Art books (practical and non) in the art studio, crappy paperbacks in the guest room, reference and language in a central area, Special Collections of finely bound and first editions behind glass, etc. And there's no way I'm going to start damaging my books with stickers to tag them (though I do tag the DVDs). Yes, I'm one of those freaks who actually loves books, the printed word, over digital data and television. I actually wrap the dust jackets on most of my hardcovers. Books are far more valuable to me than any piece of computer hardware could ever be, and they're so much more permanent.
My solution (at the time, several years ago, I was playing with simple, idiotic scripting and it was the middle of winter) was to create a Filemaker database, with everything cross-referenced and all info. on a volume easily available, and then to organize books in sections. In each section, there's a loose organization, usually something alphabetical, but that's not strictly necessary. If I know that all the anatomy books are in a piece of shelf in a certain room, or that symbology, demon possession and other religious claptrap has its own little area near my drawing table, that's close enough. All geek books go in their own shelf, organized by nature of the beast (languages, software, hardware, web technologies, etc.), and that shelf is in a practical place for the subject. In the database is a simple pull down location menu, easy to change on the fly. Yes, it takes time to input everything at first. But once that's done, it's a simple matter to add new books, or remove the 3-month old but still amazingly out of date geek book (only intelligent use of digital books I've ever run into).
Yes, the Filemaker thing is primitive. But remember, this was done when most/.ers were still in diapers (wait, they probably still are...). Cheap bar code readers weren't yet available, SQL and the like were still hidden in the world of übergeekness, and not allowed to the public for intelligent consumption, etc., etc. Nowadays, there are more options, but no great solution.
You could go with one of the professional library cataloging packages (check out BrodArt Library Supplies, great company, and they sell to regular people, too). But these aren't cheap, and are often overkill. I've personally tried Delicious Library, and looked into other more current options, but they all seem to have a central flaw that hasn't yet been satisfactorily solved. They're really meant for new items. Things _must_ have a bar code, really, or an ISBN. Things _must_ be in the Amazon or some similar system (and most of the books in the world are not). The ISBN system wasn;t created until 1966, and wasn't adopted as a standard until 1970. So finding any volumes from before this time in Amazon is nigh impossible, and likely non-existenet. If you're trying to go along a shelf scanning items for your database with a portable scanner (and I ran into this even with items that had barcodes, and should have been in databases, such as new PS2 games, or recently released crappy paperbacks), for later xfer to a database, you don't know which things have been missed on your scanning journey. What's the point of scanning things remotely if you have to carry the computer up to the books, or the books to the computer just to see what has or hasn't b
Ummmm...
You do realize that without the aid of the French the American terrorists... er... rebels... er... "freedom" fighters would likely have lost the American Revolution, don't you? So enough with the anti-French crap, already. At least they, Belgium and other European countries have the balls to tell the U.S. what they actually feel. It's called "freedom." Wow, what a concept!
And in both WWI and WWII the French and other Europeans were fighting for many, many years before the U.S. decided to become involved and spend a few months at the little game. And it was "evil" communist Russia, in its amazing defense of Stalingrad, which actually broke the back of the Nazi effort, thus leading to an easy walk-through for the "allied" forces.
You still believe the crap that your upper middle class mommy and daddy feed you?
Unions, while given a bad rap because a very few of them were used by politicians and moneygrubbers for their own gain, are the only thing in this country, and the world, that is keeping corporations from completely stepping on people. Safety regulations in mines? Forced by union strikes. Child protection laws in the workplace? Forced by unions (led in the fight by a 90-some year old woman who actually cared about 9 and 10 year olds losing limbs in factories. A woman named Mother Jones). Fair health care and prevention of a corporation cutting all retirement plans to pad their corporate wallets? The only thing preventing this is, yes, unions. Workers whose salries are randomly cut for "cost-saving measures" while the corporate office posts record profits? The Union is the only thing that can help them. The government doesn't care. Walmart doesn't care (and constantly squash any attempts for their workers to unionize). And the upper middle class don't give a damn, because they've never had to work in dangerous conditions, or work 3 part time jobs just to eat and have no insurance.
Once you've had to actually work for something in your life, or have had your benefits stripped, the benefits which are part of your salary (and you've agreed to be paid less than you should be just to get those benefits), then you can rail against the unions. Once you've actually studied history and taken a moment to use your brain, and maybe think for yourself instead of letting Walmart or Uncle Sam do it for you, then you can rail against unions. Once you use your brain and the internet for something other than trying to make yourself feel superior and intelligent, and maybe read up on the union strikers who were murdered and maimed to "protect" the "peaceful life," workers who wanted only to not be forced to go down into mines without safety equipments, or to not be charged more for the necessary gear than what they earned for the work, then you can rail about knowing it all. Once you actually get off your ass and find out that there's more to unions than jokes about Jimmy Hoffa, then you can say something. Until then, use mommy and daddy's money to buy a clue.
And it's the government workers, the postal workers (one of the largest corporate welfare corporations in the U.S.) that make $45/ hr. Not the shipbuilders, or auto builders, not the miners or janitors. Unions, and strikes, are not about getting paid more and mroe for doing nothing. They're about getting what you were promised, for protecting benefits that you're due, for not getting screwed over by a corporation while the suits at the top get paid millions for doing absolutely nothing.
An Injury to One is an Injury to All.
Neither you nor I have any idea of whether Hitler was a "christian" or not (Unless you have magical first-hand knowledge or direct evidence to the contrary). As pointed out in my previous post, however, using the quotes you did from one questionable source to try and prove that he was not are misleading and foolish. Read http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm for a different look on things. Yes, he may have only called himself a christian for political motives (a la Bush and nearly any other U.S. politician), and may have, like the majority of other political leaders, been using religion as a tool, but the only "evidence" we have to go by is what the person said, in both public and private. And, throughout his life, in public and private both before and after his rise to power, Hitler said and did far more things claiming that he was a christian than to the contrary.
Those who try to use that Table Talk thing to "prove" that Hitler wasn't a christian, without looking into it further than a quick snippet or two, are often the same people who try and use other statements to prove he was actually a homosexual (yes, it's true, they do). They're also often the same people who claim that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist raised in Soviet Russia. And often the same ones who claim that Star Wars is satanic because it shows people going beyond Light Speed, and since heaven and god are beyond the speed of light, any attempt to reach them is trying to "be" god, and thus satanic. There have been books written with all of these ideas as their foundations. And those who write and blindly follow them often fall into the same crowds.
"Now then, that from Numbers is in the context of a war between the Israelites and Midianites, not a general marry underage girls rule. In taking Bible quotes, it's important to look at the overall context of the quote."
My point exactly... Anything can be read by anyone however they want, and throwing out quotes from a text, with no basis or foundation, does no one any good. It can be done from any angle or side. No different from what the poster did with the the quotes on marrying an underage girl above, and still just as pointless. No different from people taking the laws of Moses re: things like homosexuality, wearing the wrong sorts of clothing, or touching the flesh of unclean animals (why is football not a sin?) and picking and choosing what's convenient to believe.
Christians do not follow the "New Covenant" alone. Take the "Ten Commandments", for instance. Or do they suddenly not believe in Adam & Eve, or the version of the Flood myth with Noah in it? Or David and Goliath? How many church songs are based around the Psalms? How many Christians use the old testament to try and control or legislate the lives of others? Many groups pick and choose what they want to believe that certain day, yes, and in the New Testament, certain beliefs of the old were denounced or modified. But the foundations of Christianity, and many of its core tenets, are still found in the Old Testament. And nowhere does the New Testament say that what Moses proclaimed in those verses was false. If your christian church uses only the new testament, and never refers to the old, then it is an extreme rarity. Do you burn all copies of the Old Testament as heresy?
And the Jewish religion is based around the Torah (the books of Moses, aka the first five books of the Old Testament). The "Old Testament" is a piece of the Christian Bible, compiled along with the new long after the time of christ. Parts of it were removed over time because they disagreed with other parts, as well. These books are often called the Apocryphal books. Every translation of the bible is greatly influenced by the translator and their own personal beliefs or political motivations. How many monks were brave enough to pen something for King James that was critical of a monarchy? If you choose to follow a book for your own religion, you have only yourself to blame for the quagmire of how people read such a text. No difference between the Quran, the Bible or Dianetics.
The point I was trying to make was that someone's quoting of Islamic text to prove that "muslims are evil because they have child brides" is pretty blatantly idiotic, completely off-point, has no bearing on the issue at hand, and that the same thing can be done with any religion or culture that has a written history.
If you're going to pick and choose quotes, try at least being balanced. And also use sources that are reliable and not merely something edited by someone else. What you're quoting is a collection of transcriptions from recorded material, put together by a man named Bormann, who was a rabid anti-catholic. The recordings were supposedly done between 1941 and 1943, and nowhere in them does Hitler denounce either Jesus or christianity. All his life, through his other words and writings, Hitler showed a great regard and respect for christianity. And constantly upheld its "virtues" and those of christ. What he did not like, and what he often railed against, were what he called "false" christians, those who used their church and religion to create rebellion or dissent. Those churches and clergy that used their control and power to manipulate others, or to subjugate others. He often spoke of the need for the state to protect "true" church. Even before he rose to any sort of power, he wrote such things. So stating that he wasn't a christian, by quoting a few sentences without context or foundation, is like saying christ wasn't a true believer because he threw the money-grubbing pharisees out of the temple.
More accurate and useful quotes from Hitler, far too many of which sound like the words of our political "leaders" today...
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
- Mein Kampf
"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
- Speech in Berlin, 24 Oct 1933
""My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
- Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)"
"And now Staatspräsident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to
that charge I can answer: in the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the
head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with
the parties which destroy Christianity. If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their
protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm and
arm in atheism? No, never and at no time was greater internal damage done to Christianity than in these
fourteen years when a party, theoretically Christian, sat with those who denied God in one and the same
government"
- Speech at Stüttgart, February 15, 1933
"In 1920 in this same hall I announced as the most important point in our program the demand for the
unity of all Germans. That goal has now been reached. Tremendous, unbelievable events have taken pla
"Where are these "Christian" extremists exactly, and whose embassies are they burning?"
KKK, Nazi germany, neo-nazis and other similar organizations, Facist Italy and Spain, anti-abortion zealots, gay bashers, "christians" in charge in many countries throughout the world, the U.S. (a "christian" nation) backing and killing for other "christian" causes always against non-"christians", the Crusades, the inquisitions, early American colonists outcasting and killing any who weren't a part of their church, the american colonists attacking, killing, sinking, burning and destroying the property of the British (you think it's any different what they did in the name of "Revolution"? And how did those in england react to these murderers and upstarts?), huge chunks of the history of England, Europe, Asia and the rest of the world, Colonialism (kill the heathen natives!), etc., etc., etc....
Why burn embassies when you have the power and can simply get away with killing, maiming or abusing anyone you wish without worry? Doesn't matter what the religion or reason. Those who feel powerless, who feel no other recourse is open to them because they're being stepped on and subjugated, will often resort to violence and force.
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
- Moses, by command of god, to his "chosen" people. Numbers 31:17-18, KJV
Yes, xianity is so superior. Not only keep the underage virgins for yourselves, but kill everyone else.
Discussions such as this have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and are completely idiotic in this context. Any culture, religion or nation has something like this, so pointing such a thing out to "prove" some racist or stereotypical point is not only flawed, but highly telling of the intelligence level of the one who brings it up.
And BTW, Mary was an unwed teenage mother. Cast her out!
Actually, many nations give cash prizes to Olympic athletes who win medals. The U.S., for example, currently gives $25,000 to gold medal winners, $15,000 to silver, and $10,000 for a bronze. And they've given such prizes since 1984. One of the u.s. speedskaters that won a gold just a couple of days ago immediately donated his "prize" money to an organization that goes around the world helping promote and provide athletics programs in those nations that can't afford to pay millipns each year to breed new "champions."
And then there're the bonuses from endorsers, such as Nike, who offer even larger cash prizes for medal wins. Is gross national product and national wealth a higher indicator of the number of medals a nation will win, rather than population and talent pool? You betcha. They, through endorsements and their nation's funding, buy their way into all the big events that are qualifiers, they pay millions for conditioning, testing, "athletic" science, lodging and travel, etc. Their equipment is always top of the line. Why it doesn't impress me when yet another American wins a medal. Impresses me even less when they go around spitting on the ice making rude gestures at the other athletes, or declaring themselves the best ever. Or then head back to their own, personal special living quarters in a trailer, paid for by sponsors, rather than in the olympic village with the "commoners."
Winning an event like that takes a lot of skill, and training, but more than that, it takes luck on that day. Doesn't make one the best, just means they had a great day, and tomorrow they're just as likely to fall on their ass.
What's far more impressive is those people from very poor countries who fight their way to the top, who actually earn a spot in the Olympics by sheer determination and passion alone, and then go on to knock one of the silver-spoon coddled punks down a notch or three. These are the ones who earn the title.
The usual response is a blank stare as their mind tries to not assplode from having to defend such a ridiculous statement.
Actually, the blank stare is likely from the fact that they have no idea what you're talking about. Real Science isn't taught in their unaccredited schools (run by people who have no qualifications). Creationism, and the Hoax of Modern Science as a Satanic Ploy, are. Feel pity for their parental-inflicted ignorance.
Yeah, Pixar is definitely a catastrophic failure, isn't it?
Apple was not doing well in the wealth department before Jobs' return (yes, caused partially by the way he handled things before he left, but that's only a part of it). His return, and the products created in the wake of it, are major factors in the reason Apple's currently doing so well. Whether or not Steve is a megalomaniac, and despite the fact that he's always been a marketer and "visionary" rather than a creator, he is one of those people who can make others listen just by speaking. He conveys the simplicity in function and elegance in form that is the hallmark of Apple products. Whether or not one would want to hang out at a party with someone like that is a different matter, but to downplay his role and abilities in such a way is merely trollish.
Ummm... sigh....
Mormons are, by definition, "Christian". The LDS follows the teachings of "Christ." Thus, the term applies. Just like Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Copts, and just like any other Protestant sect (Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, Assemblies of God, Pentecostal, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc., etc. - pick your flavour), they call themselves "Christians."
I am neither Mormon, or any other flavour of Christian or organized religion of the week, but still can recognize the difference (or non, as the case may be).
None of this, however, refutes the original poster's point that most (note the word "most", not "all") "Christian" music is derivative, unoriginal schlock that's created merely to milk at the cash-filled teats of a specific cow, a "hip" christianity created by middle-aged money-bred execs (or youth pastors, as the case may be) . Bands like Petra have been around far longer than most slashdotters, and in all that time have never succeeded in being more than a poorly drawn poster child for showing that "christian" rock can be as "cool" as "secular." Nor have many of those who come after. Instead of playing music, they exploit a crowd.
Of course, this is no different than the latest Disney/ Fox/ MTV / Sony/ Geffen (pick a super-power) crap out there, and pretty much everything else in the "entertainment" industry, where far more is put into concept and marketing than into actually fostering talent or skill. And no different at all from MS's latest completely unoriginal, derivative and lackluster folly.
All Rock is a tool of the devil, dancing is sexual temptation, Dungeons and Dragons teaches you to kill and eat babies, Harry Potter is the Anti-Christ, and Bill Gates is the modern Moses.
A preacher told me so, it must be true.
"All the lack of artistic interpretation will guarantee is that it'll not win an Oscar..."
Since when? Isn't that the surest way to win one these days? Give 'em flash, give 'em weepy, wide-eyed, expensive prettiness that replaces substance with sweeping scenery and predictably emotion-tugging music and you got yourself a little gold man. If the film is 3 hours long, it's gotta be a winner, right? Who needs a story when you've got a budget?
Slashdot Mirror
And for those who've never actually studied U.S. History (because it didn't take place on a computer, and can't be coded - or can it?), the stamp tax was a tax enacted by the English parliament that said all printed matter in the British colonies should have a "stamp" placed on it, showing that a tax had been paid. Like a sales tax on printed matter. The British government felt the corporations, and not the government who "owned" the land, were making all the money from the colonies, and they wanted a piece of the action. All these farmers and marketeers were making good money on trade and England wasn't seeing a farthing (or ha'penny, or crown, or whatever they had back then). No different than any ridiculous tax we pay today, and get nothing back from (or nothing that actually helps anyone, in any case). When the stamp tax was enacted, those who didn't like it attacked the homes of the tax men, viciously beating and even killing these people and their family members, burning their homes, etc. Thus, England sent in more troops to stop the little riots and violence, enacting more strict policies on "homeland security," and things grew from there...
The U.K. civil war which I believe you're referring to (there were actually several, were there not?) would seem to be the one in which Cromwell, a Puritan, along with other Puritan members of Parliament, had the king assassinated. Not much of a civil war, there. This also coincided with the slowing down of the "Great Migration" of colonists to the New England colonies from England, as many who had been coming were Puritans funded by Cromwell's buddies. Cromwell then declared that the monarchy was over, and there would be no King, but proclaimed himself "Supreme Protector" (aka, dictatorial monarch). He, along with the other Puritan members of parliament, then had the non-Puritan members "removed." And they controlled everything. On his death, his son was installed as the next Supreme protector, and the people did _not_ rejoice. Soon after, the Monarchy was restored as it had been before Cromwell's "civil war." This all happened nearly 100 years before the colonies revolted, however, and the next 100 years were spent with England fighting France (and anyone else) over territory in or around the colonies.
Cromwell was not liked by the British people. He served only his puritan friends, and was just as vicious as any of the monarchs. Recently, while in London, I was told that he was so disliked, that after the monarchy was restored, his body was actually dug up, beheaded, and his head put on a stake. Whether this story is true or not, I don't know, but it shows that people _really_ didn't like him, it seems.
As for the colonies of the new world, they were granted by kings, lords, and corporations, and new land (or land taken from other colonies) was administered and gifted to others. Oftne a lord would grant land to one overlord, then decided they didn't like them, and give it to another (who signed it over to Colonists despite people already being there from the previous grants). Only some of the colonies were British, though by the time of the Revolution, the British colonists had, by force and violence, driven out most of those from other nations. Vermont, for instance, was given to New York by one person, and to Massachusetts by another. This despite the land being granted to the people who actually lived there before either of these grants (a direct ancestor of mine was head of a party that had arranged for, and been granted, 3 such townships by the King, though he, and most of the other grantees, never actually moved there). Thus, the Green Mountain boys were born. This is also where Benedict Arnold was much maligned. He fought hard with the Green Mountain boys, for Vermont and to keep out the other colonies that were invading. It was the British King who gave them this land, and supported them in keeping the homes they'd been in for quite awhile. When the colonial upstarts led by Washington (who thought it was appropriate to take, without asking, anything and everything he wanted for his war) decided (spurred on more by the tax act and other monetary concerns than any tea in Boston or noble concerns) to start their little action, many people in Vermont still felt loyal to England. Why? Because the upstart colonies had been killing them and driving them from their homes. Why should they support that? So Benedict Arnold, who until then had been a great colonial hero (from the many French and India
Sadly, I have no room large enough to line with shelves for housing a proper library, so things have to be split up into various rooms. In this situation, trying to go with a standard organizing system is impossible. There's also the case that certain types of books belong in certain rooms. Geek books in the computer office, Art books (practical and non) in the art studio, crappy paperbacks in the guest room, reference and language in a central area, Special Collections of finely bound and first editions behind glass, etc. And there's no way I'm going to start damaging my books with stickers to tag them (though I do tag the DVDs). Yes, I'm one of those freaks who actually loves books, the printed word, over digital data and television. I actually wrap the dust jackets on most of my hardcovers. Books are far more valuable to me than any piece of computer hardware could ever be, and they're so much more permanent.
My solution (at the time, several years ago, I was playing with simple, idiotic scripting and it was the middle of winter) was to create a Filemaker database, with everything cross-referenced and all info. on a volume easily available, and then to organize books in sections. In each section, there's a loose organization, usually something alphabetical, but that's not strictly necessary. If I know that all the anatomy books are in a piece of shelf in a certain room, or that symbology, demon possession and other religious claptrap has its own little area near my drawing table, that's close enough. All geek books go in their own shelf, organized by nature of the beast (languages, software, hardware, web technologies, etc.), and that shelf is in a practical place for the subject. In the database is a simple pull down location menu, easy to change on the fly. Yes, it takes time to input everything at first. But once that's done, it's a simple matter to add new books, or remove the 3-month old but still amazingly out of date geek book (only intelligent use of digital books I've ever run into).
Yes, the Filemaker thing is primitive. But remember, this was done when most /.ers were still in diapers (wait, they probably still are...). Cheap bar code readers weren't yet available, SQL and the like were still hidden in the world of übergeekness, and not allowed to the public for intelligent consumption, etc., etc. Nowadays, there are more options, but no great solution.
You could go with one of the professional library cataloging packages (check out BrodArt Library Supplies, great company, and they sell to regular people, too). But these aren't cheap, and are often overkill. I've personally tried Delicious Library, and looked into other more current options, but they all seem to have a central flaw that hasn't yet been satisfactorily solved. They're really meant for new items. Things _must_ have a bar code, really, or an ISBN. Things _must_ be in the Amazon or some similar system (and most of the books in the world are not). The ISBN system wasn;t created until 1966, and wasn't adopted as a standard until 1970. So finding any volumes from before this time in Amazon is nigh impossible, and likely non-existenet. If you're trying to go along a shelf scanning items for your database with a portable scanner (and I ran into this even with items that had barcodes, and should have been in databases, such as new PS2 games, or recently released crappy paperbacks), for later xfer to a database, you don't know which things have been missed on your scanning journey. What's the point of scanning things remotely if you have to carry the computer up to the books, or the books to the computer just to see what has or hasn't b
If the photo accompanying the BBC article is any clue, Lucas is working hard to transform himself so he can guest star as Jabba in the series.
Ooooohhhh....
I see crossover potential....
Ummmm...
You do realize that without the aid of the French the American terrorists... er... rebels... er... "freedom" fighters would likely have lost the American Revolution, don't you? So enough with the anti-French crap, already. At least they, Belgium and other European countries have the balls to tell the U.S. what they actually feel. It's called "freedom." Wow, what a concept!
And in both WWI and WWII the French and other Europeans were fighting for many, many years before the U.S. decided to become involved and spend a few months at the little game. And it was "evil" communist Russia, in its amazing defense of Stalingrad, which actually broke the back of the Nazi effort, thus leading to an easy walk-through for the "allied" forces.
You still believe the crap that your upper middle class mommy and daddy feed you? Unions, while given a bad rap because a very few of them were used by politicians and moneygrubbers for their own gain, are the only thing in this country, and the world, that is keeping corporations from completely stepping on people. Safety regulations in mines? Forced by union strikes. Child protection laws in the workplace? Forced by unions (led in the fight by a 90-some year old woman who actually cared about 9 and 10 year olds losing limbs in factories. A woman named Mother Jones). Fair health care and prevention of a corporation cutting all retirement plans to pad their corporate wallets? The only thing preventing this is, yes, unions. Workers whose salries are randomly cut for "cost-saving measures" while the corporate office posts record profits? The Union is the only thing that can help them. The government doesn't care. Walmart doesn't care (and constantly squash any attempts for their workers to unionize). And the upper middle class don't give a damn, because they've never had to work in dangerous conditions, or work 3 part time jobs just to eat and have no insurance. Once you've had to actually work for something in your life, or have had your benefits stripped, the benefits which are part of your salary (and you've agreed to be paid less than you should be just to get those benefits), then you can rail against the unions. Once you've actually studied history and taken a moment to use your brain, and maybe think for yourself instead of letting Walmart or Uncle Sam do it for you, then you can rail against unions. Once you use your brain and the internet for something other than trying to make yourself feel superior and intelligent, and maybe read up on the union strikers who were murdered and maimed to "protect" the "peaceful life," workers who wanted only to not be forced to go down into mines without safety equipments, or to not be charged more for the necessary gear than what they earned for the work, then you can rail about knowing it all. Once you actually get off your ass and find out that there's more to unions than jokes about Jimmy Hoffa, then you can say something. Until then, use mommy and daddy's money to buy a clue. And it's the government workers, the postal workers (one of the largest corporate welfare corporations in the U.S.) that make $45/ hr. Not the shipbuilders, or auto builders, not the miners or janitors. Unions, and strikes, are not about getting paid more and mroe for doing nothing. They're about getting what you were promised, for protecting benefits that you're due, for not getting screwed over by a corporation while the suits at the top get paid millions for doing absolutely nothing. An Injury to One is an Injury to All.
Neither you nor I have any idea of whether Hitler was a "christian" or not (Unless you have magical first-hand knowledge or direct evidence to the contrary). As pointed out in my previous post, however, using the quotes you did from one questionable source to try and prove that he was not are misleading and foolish. Read http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm for a different look on things. Yes, he may have only called himself a christian for political motives (a la Bush and nearly any other U.S. politician), and may have, like the majority of other political leaders, been using religion as a tool, but the only "evidence" we have to go by is what the person said, in both public and private. And, throughout his life, in public and private both before and after his rise to power, Hitler said and did far more things claiming that he was a christian than to the contrary.
Those who try to use that Table Talk thing to "prove" that Hitler wasn't a christian, without looking into it further than a quick snippet or two, are often the same people who try and use other statements to prove he was actually a homosexual (yes, it's true, they do). They're also often the same people who claim that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist raised in Soviet Russia. And often the same ones who claim that Star Wars is satanic because it shows people going beyond Light Speed, and since heaven and god are beyond the speed of light, any attempt to reach them is trying to "be" god, and thus satanic. There have been books written with all of these ideas as their foundations. And those who write and blindly follow them often fall into the same crowds.
"Now then, that from Numbers is in the context of a war between the Israelites and Midianites, not a general marry underage girls rule. In taking Bible quotes, it's important to look at the overall context of the quote."
My point exactly... Anything can be read by anyone however they want, and throwing out quotes from a text, with no basis or foundation, does no one any good. It can be done from any angle or side. No different from what the poster did with the the quotes on marrying an underage girl above, and still just as pointless. No different from people taking the laws of Moses re: things like homosexuality, wearing the wrong sorts of clothing, or touching the flesh of unclean animals (why is football not a sin?) and picking and choosing what's convenient to believe.
Wrong...
Christians do not follow the "New Covenant" alone. Take the "Ten Commandments", for instance. Or do they suddenly not believe in Adam & Eve, or the version of the Flood myth with Noah in it? Or David and Goliath? How many church songs are based around the Psalms? How many Christians use the old testament to try and control or legislate the lives of others? Many groups pick and choose what they want to believe that certain day, yes, and in the New Testament, certain beliefs of the old were denounced or modified. But the foundations of Christianity, and many of its core tenets, are still found in the Old Testament. And nowhere does the New Testament say that what Moses proclaimed in those verses was false. If your christian church uses only the new testament, and never refers to the old, then it is an extreme rarity. Do you burn all copies of the Old Testament as heresy?
And the Jewish religion is based around the Torah (the books of Moses, aka the first five books of the Old Testament). The "Old Testament" is a piece of the Christian Bible, compiled along with the new long after the time of christ. Parts of it were removed over time because they disagreed with other parts, as well. These books are often called the Apocryphal books. Every translation of the bible is greatly influenced by the translator and their own personal beliefs or political motivations. How many monks were brave enough to pen something for King James that was critical of a monarchy? If you choose to follow a book for your own religion, you have only yourself to blame for the quagmire of how people read such a text. No difference between the Quran, the Bible or Dianetics.
The point I was trying to make was that someone's quoting of Islamic text to prove that "muslims are evil because they have child brides" is pretty blatantly idiotic, completely off-point, has no bearing on the issue at hand, and that the same thing can be done with any religion or culture that has a written history.
If you're going to pick and choose quotes, try at least being balanced. And also use sources that are reliable and not merely something edited by someone else. What you're quoting is a collection of transcriptions from recorded material, put together by a man named Bormann, who was a rabid anti-catholic. The recordings were supposedly done between 1941 and 1943, and nowhere in them does Hitler denounce either Jesus or christianity. All his life, through his other words and writings, Hitler showed a great regard and respect for christianity. And constantly upheld its "virtues" and those of christ. What he did not like, and what he often railed against, were what he called "false" christians, those who used their church and religion to create rebellion or dissent. Those churches and clergy that used their control and power to manipulate others, or to subjugate others. He often spoke of the need for the state to protect "true" church. Even before he rose to any sort of power, he wrote such things. So stating that he wasn't a christian, by quoting a few sentences without context or foundation, is like saying christ wasn't a true believer because he threw the money-grubbing pharisees out of the temple.
More accurate and useful quotes from Hitler, far too many of which sound like the words of our political "leaders" today...
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
- Mein Kampf
"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
- Speech in Berlin, 24 Oct 1933
""My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
- Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)"
"And now Staatspräsident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to that charge I can answer: in the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity. If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm and arm in atheism? No, never and at no time was greater internal damage done to Christianity than in these fourteen years when a party, theoretically Christian, sat with those who denied God in one and the same government"
- Speech at Stüttgart, February 15, 1933
"In 1920 in this same hall I announced as the most important point in our program the demand for the unity of all Germans. That goal has now been reached. Tremendous, unbelievable events have taken pla
"Where are these "Christian" extremists exactly, and whose embassies are they burning?"
KKK, Nazi germany, neo-nazis and other similar organizations, Facist Italy and Spain, anti-abortion zealots, gay bashers, "christians" in charge in many countries throughout the world, the U.S. (a "christian" nation) backing and killing for other "christian" causes always against non-"christians", the Crusades, the inquisitions, early American colonists outcasting and killing any who weren't a part of their church, the american colonists attacking, killing, sinking, burning and destroying the property of the British (you think it's any different what they did in the name of "Revolution"? And how did those in england react to these murderers and upstarts?), huge chunks of the history of England, Europe, Asia and the rest of the world, Colonialism (kill the heathen natives!), etc., etc., etc....
Why burn embassies when you have the power and can simply get away with killing, maiming or abusing anyone you wish without worry? Doesn't matter what the religion or reason. Those who feel powerless, who feel no other recourse is open to them because they're being stepped on and subjugated, will often resort to violence and force.
One of us, one of us, gooble gobble...
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
- Moses, by command of god, to his "chosen" people. Numbers 31:17-18, KJV
Yes, xianity is so superior. Not only keep the underage virgins for yourselves, but kill everyone else.
Discussions such as this have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and are completely idiotic in this context. Any culture, religion or nation has something like this, so pointing such a thing out to "prove" some racist or stereotypical point is not only flawed, but highly telling of the intelligence level of the one who brings it up.
And BTW, Mary was an unwed teenage mother. Cast her out!
Actually, many nations give cash prizes to Olympic athletes who win medals. The U.S., for example, currently gives $25,000 to gold medal winners, $15,000 to silver, and $10,000 for a bronze. And they've given such prizes since 1984. One of the u.s. speedskaters that won a gold just a couple of days ago immediately donated his "prize" money to an organization that goes around the world helping promote and provide athletics programs in those nations that can't afford to pay millipns each year to breed new "champions." And then there're the bonuses from endorsers, such as Nike, who offer even larger cash prizes for medal wins. Is gross national product and national wealth a higher indicator of the number of medals a nation will win, rather than population and talent pool? You betcha. They, through endorsements and their nation's funding, buy their way into all the big events that are qualifiers, they pay millions for conditioning, testing, "athletic" science, lodging and travel, etc. Their equipment is always top of the line. Why it doesn't impress me when yet another American wins a medal. Impresses me even less when they go around spitting on the ice making rude gestures at the other athletes, or declaring themselves the best ever. Or then head back to their own, personal special living quarters in a trailer, paid for by sponsors, rather than in the olympic village with the "commoners." Winning an event like that takes a lot of skill, and training, but more than that, it takes luck on that day. Doesn't make one the best, just means they had a great day, and tomorrow they're just as likely to fall on their ass. What's far more impressive is those people from very poor countries who fight their way to the top, who actually earn a spot in the Olympics by sheer determination and passion alone, and then go on to knock one of the silver-spoon coddled punks down a notch or three. These are the ones who earn the title.
What's saddest of all is that I'm stating this from personal experience... :(
The usual response is a blank stare as their mind tries to not assplode from having to defend such a ridiculous statement. Actually, the blank stare is likely from the fact that they have no idea what you're talking about. Real Science isn't taught in their unaccredited schools (run by people who have no qualifications). Creationism, and the Hoax of Modern Science as a Satanic Ploy, are. Feel pity for their parental-inflicted ignorance.
Yeah, Pixar is definitely a catastrophic failure, isn't it? Apple was not doing well in the wealth department before Jobs' return (yes, caused partially by the way he handled things before he left, but that's only a part of it). His return, and the products created in the wake of it, are major factors in the reason Apple's currently doing so well. Whether or not Steve is a megalomaniac, and despite the fact that he's always been a marketer and "visionary" rather than a creator, he is one of those people who can make others listen just by speaking. He conveys the simplicity in function and elegance in form that is the hallmark of Apple products. Whether or not one would want to hang out at a party with someone like that is a different matter, but to downplay his role and abilities in such a way is merely trollish.
Ummm... sigh.... Mormons are, by definition, "Christian". The LDS follows the teachings of "Christ." Thus, the term applies. Just like Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Copts, and just like any other Protestant sect (Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, Assemblies of God, Pentecostal, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc., etc. - pick your flavour), they call themselves "Christians." I am neither Mormon, or any other flavour of Christian or organized religion of the week, but still can recognize the difference (or non, as the case may be). None of this, however, refutes the original poster's point that most (note the word "most", not "all") "Christian" music is derivative, unoriginal schlock that's created merely to milk at the cash-filled teats of a specific cow, a "hip" christianity created by middle-aged money-bred execs (or youth pastors, as the case may be) . Bands like Petra have been around far longer than most slashdotters, and in all that time have never succeeded in being more than a poorly drawn poster child for showing that "christian" rock can be as "cool" as "secular." Nor have many of those who come after. Instead of playing music, they exploit a crowd. Of course, this is no different than the latest Disney/ Fox/ MTV / Sony/ Geffen (pick a super-power) crap out there, and pretty much everything else in the "entertainment" industry, where far more is put into concept and marketing than into actually fostering talent or skill. And no different at all from MS's latest completely unoriginal, derivative and lackluster folly.
All Rock is a tool of the devil, dancing is sexual temptation, Dungeons and Dragons teaches you to kill and eat babies, Harry Potter is the Anti-Christ, and Bill Gates is the modern Moses. A preacher told me so, it must be true.
"How can someone's reading comprehension be so poor?" "Faith-based" education.
"All the lack of artistic interpretation will guarantee is that it'll not win an Oscar..." Since when? Isn't that the surest way to win one these days? Give 'em flash, give 'em weepy, wide-eyed, expensive prettiness that replaces substance with sweeping scenery and predictably emotion-tugging music and you got yourself a little gold man. If the film is 3 hours long, it's gotta be a winner, right? Who needs a story when you've got a budget?