Re: Half-Blood Prince (No spoilers)
On Jul 16, 2005, at 10:12 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Just finished - I got it at 8:50am this morning. It's dazzling. Rowling gets better with each book - it's just phenomenal. I'll agree there. I wonder how much of that is her development as a writer versus her understanding that, as her characters mature (as do her readers), she can deal more directly with deeper, more difficult subjects. It was a hell of a read. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter - no actual spoiler, just a complaint
On Jul 16, 2005, at 5:55 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: THERE IS A MISTAKE ON PAGE 10! At least in the US edition. Yeah. Really weird. Fortunately I didn't see much else, though there seemed to be an inordinate fondness for the word snog that perhaps could have been thesaurusized a bit. Oh well; it was nowhere near as obnoxious as Anne Rice's attachment to the word preternatural, which was enough to put me off her writing forever. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
No spoilers here. On Jul 17, 2005, at 4:45 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: One of the striking things about the books, really, is how _angry_ they are. You get the feeling that Rowling works herself up into a howling rage at the British class system - something she is able to do despite being a billionaire. I believe she was all but homeless shortly before HPtPS sold, however. That may go a long way to explaining things. She was a struggling single mother, yes, and living in a bit of a hovel. And in the attempts to get the first book published she was rejected by a LOT of editors, many of whom might not be able to find work anywhere any more. She's certainly not fond of elitism or class prejudice, I would suspect. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Clouds
On Jul 18, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Dave Land wrote: On Jul 15, 2005, at 7:34 PM, Leonard Matusik wrote: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:52:27 -0500 Gary Denton posted URL http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/june2004hastings-mammatus.html -- Quite sensuous to be sure.. I think I know what the cloud name is meant to suggest, but the last picture is clearly more gluteus than mammatus. You're right; mammatus refers to the breastlike shape that is characteristic of the cloud formations. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Those who do not critique his theory, are doomed to repeat it......
Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:28:34 +0100 William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Leonard Matusik wrote: on Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:53:59 -0500 Gary Denton wrote: On 7/10/05, KZK wrote: http://www.cathnews.com/news/507/56.php The influential Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna has suggested that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith. This disagrees with previous Catholic Church doctrine regarding evolution. For decades children going to Catholic School had been taught there is no incompatibility between Darwin and Church teachings. A new conservative Pope and now Cardinals following the lead of Protestant fundamentalists - are we headed for a new mildly Darkish Age - trying to head off another long exchange about the degree of darkness the last one was? GARY DENTON! using the *F* word again (Fundamentalist :#) To tell the truth I agree with the good Cardinal. The advancement of evolutionary theory is in a deplorable state. Maybe I haven't kept up with it properly but how is it again that we explain blind cave fish and alkaloids in higher plants from a Drawinian-TM perspective? I think we have the answer! (bt) No, .. I'm sorry .that is INcorrect. (and we have run out of time for you to make good on it) The answer to the question: How is it again that we explain blind cave fish and higher plant alkaloids from a Drawinian-TM perspective? is... Poorly at best, William..poorly at best. (I think we MAY have AN answer would have also been accepted) ...but thanks for playing our little game. The *point* of the matter IS that, Charles Darwin was a deeply spiritual man who did not approach his very young theory with the flippancy of most people today. THAT is what Cardinal Chris is pointing out. (and notice the qualifying language he uses, the Church has learned alot since Gallileo) ButDavid Loye says it better: In the Descent of Man Charles Darwin wrote only twice of survival of the fittest but 95 times about love! 92 times about moral sensitivity. And 200 times about brain and mind. Suppression over 100 years of the real Darwin has led to the social, political, economic, scientific, educational, moral and spiritual mess we are in today. ---for more Darwin fun check out his web site http://www.thedarwinproject.com/ (and no this is NOT a Catholic site, it's a tree-hugger site) Leonard HighOnPope Matusik [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell _ (easy, eh? random mutation, natural selection;..random mutation, natural selection; random mutation, natural selection;... random mutation, natural selection ..try singing it with a little songfun for the whole family. .. and to think *he* had to write a whole bloody book... pompous boffin.) - Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Those who do not critique his theory, are doomed to repeat it......
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leonard Matusik Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 11:54 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Those who do not critique his theory, are doomed to repeat it.. Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:28:34 +0100 William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Leonard Matusik wrote: on Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:53:59 -0500 Gary Denton wrote: On 7/10/05, KZK wrote: http://www.cathnews.com/news/507/56.php The influential Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna has suggested that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith. This disagrees with previous Catholic Church doctrine regarding evolution. For decades children going to Catholic School had been taught there is no incompatibility between Darwin and Church teachings. A new conservative Pope and now Cardinals following the lead of Protestant fundamentalists - are we headed for a new mildly Darkish Age - trying to head off another long exchange about the degree of darkness the last one was? GARY DENTON! using the *F* word again (Fundamentalist :#) To tell the truth I agree with the good Cardinal. The advancement of evolutionary theory is in a deplorable state. Maybe I haven't kept up with it properly but how is it again that we explain blind cave fish and alkaloids in higher plants from a Drawinian-TM perspective? I think we have the answer! (bt) No, .. I'm sorry .that is INcorrect. (and we have run out of time for you to make good on it) The answer to the question: How is it again that we explain blind cave fish and higher plant alkaloids from a Drawinian-TM perspective? is... Poorly at best, William..poorly at best. (I think we MAY have AN answer would have also been accepted) ...but thanks for playing our little game. The *point* of the matter IS that, Charles Darwin was a deeply spiritual man who did not approach his very young theory with the flippancy of most people today. THAT is what Cardinal Chris is pointing out. (and notice the qualifying language he uses, the Church has learned alot since Gallileo) ButDavid Loye says it better: In the Descent of Man Charles Darwin wrote only twice of survival of the fittest but 95 times about love! 92 times about moral sensitivity. And 200 times about brain and mind. Suppression over 100 years of the real Darwin has led to the social, political, economic, scientific, educational, moral and spiritual mess we are in today. ---for more Darwin fun check out his web site http://www.thedarwinproject.com/ (and no this is NOT a Catholic site, it's a tree-hugger site) Leonard HighOnPope Matusik [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell _ (easy, eh? random mutation, natural selection;..random mutation, natural selection; random mutation, natural selection;... random mutation, natural selection ..try singing it with a little songfun for the whole family. .. and to think *he* had to write a whole bloody book... pompous boffin.) - Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l all I have to say about it is this. Young Travis, and myself both went through the same Catholic school system. it produced us that says it all... lolhowever what needs to be seen is that we were taught Darwinism, and were shown how it relates to the old test testament, and how the old testament should not be viewed as fact how it was an interpretation for the masses to understand where and how we became. I remember with rather great detail one religion teacher (keep in mind that our religion class was not a dogmatic catholic study it was a study of morality and spirituality of our and other religions) asking us who here watches star trek few put up their hands, however his point was about TOS and TNG, look to TOS as the building blocks to what we were and what morality has become, look to TNG as being the end product, that will evolve as human kind's understanding of the world changes. He went on to say that religion is only the vessel that is used to show us the moral implications of actions, and to assist us in developing our spirit so that it maybe able to reside after death in heaven. Nick beam me up, God Lidster ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Constitution and Commandment
On Jul 18, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:53 PM Monday 7/18/2005, Doug Pensinger wrote: I guess Come Together wouldn't be appropriate. I thought it was considered the ideal. Yes, but the use of a vibrator does not bode well for simultaneity in most cases. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Constitution and Commandment
Dave Land wrote: On Jul 18, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:53 PM Monday 7/18/2005, Doug Pensinger wrote: I guess Come Together wouldn't be appropriate. I thought it was considered the ideal. Yes, but the use of a vibrator does not bode well for simultaneity in most cases. I was going to say something like that, as well. It could be useful *at some point* if simultaneity isn't happening on its own. Oh, and in response to Ronn!'s comment regarding the vibrator that plays a song, it's not *labor* I fear, just pitocin. :) Julia and I don't fear flying, but I fear dealing with commercial airlines ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 16, 2005, at 11:07 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: [Ye Olde ƒpoiler-ƒpace.] . . . 1. The plot of this book was actually very sparse. In terms of the main plot - the war - what happened? There wasn't much of a sense of a larger scale, but then, none of the HP books have *ever* been about anything but Harry, Hermione and Ron, really, set largely at Hogwarts. She couldn't open the scale of the narrative without reducing the focus, I thought. That said, there did seem to be some glossings-over of affected students' families, but then, given how the book ended, maybe the thought was that the emotional impact of the last few chapters was more than enough. Just as Rowling doesn't delve extensively into intimate relationships, she doesn't seem to want to describe, in rich detail, the collateral damage of the war. Too, there's the fact that much of it is kept underground to begin with. There's a sense of suppression of sorts, but then, think back to your high school days. How much active discussion of current wars was going on in formal classroom settings? Three chief events. Dumbledore is killed. Snape is revealed. We learn what Harry will have to do to defeat Voldemort. That's all I can think of. Mm, development of Ron Hermione, which didn't surprise me; and Harry and Ginny's brief tryst, which also didn't surprise me, and which I expect will be revisited… The big shock was not Dumbledore dying, of course - it's been obvious that that had to happen at the end of Book Six since, well, Book 1, probably. What is a huge shock, of course, is that _Snape_ would be the one who murders him. Yeah, me too -- I had the impression that at first Malfoy was told to target Harry, but when Ron drank the poisoned mead I realized Dumbledore was the target. And I kept expecting Snape to somehow figure out a way to break the oath and survive, or maybe let Dumbledore win in a duel, or maybe that D. had something up his sleeve, so to speak, in his slow floorward progress on the parapet. I am quite impressed by Rowling's skill in setting this up. As in each of her other books, she plays absolutely fair with the reader. We had enough information to figure out (before Harry does) what Malfoy was doing, for example - although I doubt many people will. Ahh, the mead's a dead give-away, isn't it? To me it was one of those clues like the flowery scent Harry smells near the love potion, and then a few chapters later the flowery scent he notices just before Ginny shows up. And as far back as book 4 (maybe even 3) or so she was clearly carrying a torch for him. But in each book Rowling has carefully crafted a structure - we suspect Snape, we hate Snape, we discover that Snape is actually a good guy. By this book, of course, I was so used to that structure that I completely failed to suspect Snape. I kept vacillating, FWIW. I really wanted to believe he was playing a part, I suppose. His duplicity in the end -- or was it, really, duplicity? -- did catch me off guard. I think I was hoping that Rowling was going to make a point about intentions sometimes being masked by necessities, but of course Harry was right all along. So when Snape appeared at the last minute - I expected him to rescuce Dumbledore (somehow) or perhaps even die in glorious but futile defense of him. Yeah! Exactly. I certainly didn't expect the murder. Yet again, here - Rowling actually provides us with a Voldemort-approved explanation for his behavior, and we knew (from Harry's Occlumency lessons) that Snape was a half-blood - although I don't recall _anyone_ suggesting Snape as the Half-Blood Prince, and it certainly didn't occur to me while I was reading. I only suspected it toward the end, after Harry curses Malfoy in the bathroom. It occurred to me that maybe somehow it was Snape's book after all (earlier I'd suspected it was another one of Moldyfart's oblique historical artifacts), but then of course there was the female Prince Hermione found out about. There's a theme here dealing with mudbloods too. The Dark wizards all seem to be fanatically uptight about purity -- and yet not ONE of the major players, even Moldy himself, happen to have the purity of blood they so crave. They're self-loathing first, it seems, and rather than deal with it in a healthy way they decide to spread the misery around. The focus was clearly (as it says on the dust jacket flap, of all things) on the home front. We got to see relationships further develop at Hogswarts - in a highly amusing and enjoyable fashion, of course. To slip into discussion of the movies for a moment, I was very satisfied with the way Cuaròn dealt with this in the third film. He ushers all three of the characters into the maturity of young adulthood in a way that simply would have been impossible for Columbus. CC would have made sure there was a lot of mugging, eye-rolling and other goofy
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 17, 2005, at 8:12 AM, Jim Sharkey wrote: [More space…] Gautam Mukunda wrote: 1. A few quick thoughts on the plot 2. Some more serious thoughts on the moral messages and ideas I think Rowling is trying to convey (and why they make me far more impressed by her writing than I was before reading this one) 3. A few brief thoughts on the extent to which Rowling is engaging in - at least to a small extent - some political allegory S P O I L E R S P A C E Snape is revealed. Is he? I think Ms. Rowling *still* left enough wiggle room for Severus not to be the bad guy. Yes, he did kill Dumbledore, but there are signs both in that scene and in Harry's pursuit of him that suggest there's more to it than Snape is on the Dark Side. Ah, but Dumbledore, in his discussion of horcruxes, makes it clear that murder destroys the soul. This isn't a Lucasian world where a single act of good can redeem a murder (a la Vader at the end of RotJ). And Snape, unlike Draco, *chose* to take on the task should Malfoy prove unable. He elected to take the oath; he wasn't under anyone's compulsion. I don't think there's any way to recover from that. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 17, 2005, at 12:19 PM, Dan Minette wrote: [Spoiler room] . . . The look on Snapes' face is a clue I think. His reaction to being called a coward is another. I think it would be a wonderful twist if Snape, who has now lost all honor, actually did it because he promised Dumbledore that he wouldand because it was necessary for Harry to succeed. That's an interesting suggestion. So Snape took the oath because he knew he had to, in order to be a kind of fifth column in the Death Eaters, and he did it with Dumbledore's blessing? Hmm! There is one more clue concerning this, Dumbledore knows something about Snape that no-one else does. He was not fooled by Tom Riddle, and I don't think he was fooled by Snape. Or maybe it was simply his sense of optimism regarding pretty much everyone. I get the sense that he *wanted* to see the good in Riddle but, over the years, began to recognize that it was impossible. Someone in book 6 made a comment to the effect that Dumbledore has no choice but to see the good in almost everyone, and that it would be his downfall. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 17, 2005, at 3:57 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: [Spoilerplate] . . . --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. OK - this is really the part of the book I find most interesting. The extent to which these books are, in a sense, didactic is quite remarkable to me, and I really admire both Rowling's skill and her principles. There are a few scenes in particular that, to me, send this message. But let's set the context a little bit. In the earlier books Harry was, in general, a poor, downtrodden kid. I don't think so. He is _the_ Harry Potter almost from the beginning. He is a favorite of the headmaster, of many of the teachers, and is a rare first year Seeker, who is remarkedly good at it, too. He is proclaimed a hero at the end of the first book, and wins glory for his house with his actions. Only Snape, who distrusts the family, and Malfoy and his henchmen are against him. Further, Malfoy is against him because he turned down an invitation to join him very publically. Harry was sticking by ordinary people (a poorer wizzard family and a Mudblood from the the very beginning. That's true, but I think it understates the power of the scenes where Harry is at the Dursley's. There he's clearly the oppressed one, and Rowling (significantly, until this book) is careful to give us a good long taste of what it's like for Harry to live there. Similarly, it may be true that only Snape is against him - but the other teachers really do little to help him, while Snape does a great deal to harm him. So I think it's true that Harry stuck by ordinary people from the beginning - but it's different to do so when your primary identification is as one of the downtrodden, and another when you're the elite. It just occurred to me how very Dickensian a lot of this story is. Harry's more or less the perfect iconic Dickens hero -- a boy who survives tremendous oppression, an orphan, who manages to maintain a sweet spirit, and who over time and in the right environments flourishes as a really fine young man. When was he an outcast? He had two great friends, he was a key player on _the_ sports team, etc. It wasn't until book 4 5 that people in general started questioning him because he said that You-Know-Who was back and that he fought him. I think that it's true that he was only an outcast at Hogwarts for some periods. But he was an outcast for _the first 11 years of his life_. And Rowling is careful to make that status clear in all of the earlier books. One of the striking things about the books, really, is how _angry_ they are. You get the feeling that Rowling works herself up into a howling rage at the British class system - something she is able to do despite being a billionaire. That was the biggest insight to come out of Slate's Book Clubs on Harry Potter, I think. And that again is what feels so much like Dickens. (Well, that plus the books are turning into great whopping thick wedges of pulp, another Dickens hallmark. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 17, 2005, at 9:00 PM, Dan Minette wrote: [Spoiler!] From: Maru Dubshinki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 10:57 PM Subject: Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3 Spoiler Space Returned And I felt very annoyed when the Prince turned out to be Snape rather than Voldemort. I feel a little cheated at such dishonesty- one expected the Prince to be actually a prince, no? I knew from the very start that Voldermort was not the Prince. There was a big clue before the book came out. (Rowling said he wasn't.) :-) I was relieved. The constant references to Moldyfart were actually getting pretty trite. There was a nice break from the JKR formula here -- actually the whole book was a breach from the trend set in the first three or four volumes -- that I found quite refreshing. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
[No spoilers here] On Jul 17, 2005, at 10:17 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: When she's done with Harry Potter, I rather imagine that she's going to turn into a heck of a mystery writer. That's a neat idea. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Valid science and Bush II
For policy wonks and issue advocates, a new area of specialization has recently arrived on the scene: Scientific integrity. Bills on the subject have been introduced in Congress. Interest groups, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), now specialize in tracking political interference with science. Foundations are dedicating energy and funding to the area; journalists, commentators, pundits and bloggers have also climbed on board. One (yours truly) even has a book coming out on the subject. There's room, it almost seems, for a career here. All of this activity has been triggered by repeated charges that the Bush administration has reached a new low in its willingness to twist and undermine scientific information to suit desired policy objectives. More: http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/sciencewars2/ -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Uplift locations and dates. Hey, Alberto?
Vilyehm wrote: there is a strong possibility that UW Chapter 81 takes place in 2489-November. That would make things easier. The first of the Thennanin fleet arriving December 2489 Hmmm... No, because the Tymbrimi-Thennanin treaty would take place some time after that. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Uplift locations and dates. Hey, Alberto?
In a message dated 7/19/2005 1:17:51 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That would make things easier. The first of the Thennanin fleet arriving December 2489 Hmmm... No, because the Tymbrimi-Thennanin treaty would take place some time after that. A fleet would start heading to Earth the day after the Uplift Ceremony, treaty or not. Everyone viewed that hyperspace shunt. Give me some slack here. Nothing more than a laughing Thennanin should have set the Eatees running. If you want it later in the year, then I can't have the gargoyle jumping out of the cold night's mist. Vilyehm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Season - Stargate SG1-Atlantis Battlestar Galactica
Gary Nunn wrote: WARNING! - MAJOR SPOILER FOLLOWS for Stargate Atlantis. S P O I L E R S P A C E . . . From the episode guide on scifi.com, it looks like this ship is going to stick around, at least for a few episodes. I thought I remembered someone saying (maybe it was in a previous episode?) something about how the Daedalus was projected for long term station in Atlantis (along with the extra troops brought in the previous episode). I believe that the President and O'Neill felt that the Prometheus and the 2nd Daedalus-class ship in construction were enough to station on Earth. -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ Support Open/Free Mythoi: Read the manifesto @ mythoi.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Uplift locations and dates. Hey, Alberto?
On Monday 2005-07-18 18:17, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Vilyehm wrote: there is a strong possibility that UW Chapter 81 takes place in 2489-November. That would make things easier. The first of the Thennanin fleet arriving December 2489 Hmmm... No, because the Tymbrimi-Thennanin treaty would take place some time after that. Alberto Monteiro Tymbrimi-Thennanin treaty?? Why would a Terragen-Thennanin treaty and alliance imply a Tymbrimi-Thennanin treaty? Perhaps a series of memoranda of understanding concerning Terragen relations? That would be a minimal approach to cooperation where it would be strictly necessary. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What interrogation techniques are ethical and practical?
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Put down the vinegar/ Take up the honey-jar/ You'll catch many more flies! Maru Just be sure you don't take it out of the honey-wagon . . . No, that's on the honey, do list, I'm sure! No, Ma'am, It's A Puppy Maru scratches ear in puzzlement Debbi Over My Head Maru ;) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Probies (was: Local car heat-related child death)
Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: much snippage Anyway, I have some relevant experience in the area, and can tell you that the parents who only accidentally leave their kids in the car will torture themselves in ways that make Abu Ghraib and Gitmo look like preschool. nods That's what I thought. OTOH, as Warren wrote: I've got a long list of peeves along those lines. From my perspective an ungrateful, unappreciative parent -- one who does not recognize the innate worth of his own children -- is probably the least comprehensible entity I can imagine. Even sociopathic bomb-wielding terrorists I can understand; but a father who rejects his own flesh and blood on *any* level is skating the edge of being summarily sterilized. I find it astonishingly galling that there are so many men who casually sire and abandon. While my nuturing side feels that such broken men might be 'healed' with time and patience, my practical brain thinks selective sterilization would prevent a heck of a lot of misery in this world. Of course, who would I trust (besides myself and select friends) to wield that sort of power? I don't recall how _human_ Probationers were classified/sentenced (chimps and dolphins of course had to submit to the authority of the Uplift Board WRT breeding rights) in Himself's universe. Anybody? Debbi Selective Snippage Indeed Maru Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Head-butts (was: Half-Blood Prince)
Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip And now I'm only 38 pages from the end of the other book, but have to stop and admit that naptime is over, and be overrun with little ones for the next few hours. (It's not the overrunning that's a problem so much as all the head-butts the 22-month-olds have gotten into the habit of inflicting) Head-butts from toddlers are certainly more oof!-able than those from cats and kittens, but when a half-ton of equine *thonks* you one, prepare to kiss some dirt! :D Debbi who is currently correcting that particular cute-but-bad habit in Cezanne __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Uplift locations and dates. Hey, Alberto?
In a message dated 7/19/2005 3:25:27 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tymbrimi-Thennanin treaty?? Cuz it was in Uplift War. Ambassador to ambassador, if nothing else. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Those who do not critique his theory, are doomed to repeat it......
In a message dated 7/19/2005 10:24:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The *point* of the matter IS that, Charles Darwin was a deeply spiritual man who did not approach his very young theory with the flippancy of most people today. THAT is what Cardinal Chris is pointing out. (and notice the qualifying language he uses, the Church has learned alot since Gallileo) Darwin was not really spirtual. He kept mum on his religous beliefs in part out of respect for his wife (some think he delayed publication of Origin in part to avoid causing his wife difficulty). He was a public agnostic and likely an atheist. ButDavid Loye says it better: In the Descent of Man Charles Darwin wrote only twice of survival of the fittest — but 95 times about love! 92 times about moral sensitivity. survival of the fittest is really atributable to Herbert Spencer who pushed Social Darwinism a philosophy Charles was distinctly uncomfortable with. Darwin understood that his theory explicitly did away with the notion of progress in particular towards a higher state or goal (that is for most people humans). Many evolutionists have been closer philosophically to Spencer than Darwin including Ronald Fisher in England and Seward Wright in the US the two scientists who restored natural selection as theory of evoluition. In the late 19th and early 20th century natural selection was regarded as wrong or at least incapable of being the cause of all evolutionary change. Mutation, inheritance of acquired traits (Lamarkism) and directed evolution (that is god) all were considered more important than selection which was thought to be able to account for only small changes. Nothing much has changed today. Some tout things like morphologic requirements or developemental constraints claiming they have more to do with evolution than selection. Even Creationists such as intelligent design advocates like MIchael Behe and William Demisky believing that small changes (microevolution) can occur via selection. They like many others just don't like the idea of puposeless selectrion beinign responsilble for major evolutionary trends (marcroevolution). Still through all Natural Selection is the only scientifically viable and experimentally supported theory that explains adaptation. The reason that people don't like natural selection is that the inevitable conclusion of accepting natural selection is that there is no purpose to life, no plan. We don't mind that when it comes to maybe the shape of the beaks of finches but we do not want to accept that for ourselves. It is a bleak vision. Unfortunately I see no other possibility. All other options including god create too many problems. If there really is a purpose a goal a guiding intelligence an objective view of the world requires that this intelligence is at best an insensitive practical joker or more likely a malignant one. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Head-butts
Deborah Harrell wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip And now I'm only 38 pages from the end of the other book, but have to stop and admit that naptime is over, and be overrun with little ones for the next few hours. (It's not the overrunning that's a problem so much as all the head-butts the 22-month-olds have gotten into the habit of inflicting) Head-butts from toddlers are certainly more oof!-able than those from cats and kittens, but when a half-ton of equine *thonks* you one, prepare to kiss some dirt! :D Debbi who is currently correcting that particular cute-but-bad habit in Cezanne Oy. Sam has gotten into the act, as well. He's butting a lot higher than he was 2 years ago. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
Warren Ockrassa wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: S P O I L E R S P A C E Snape is revealed. Is he? I think Ms. Rowling *still* left enough wiggle room for Severus not to be the bad guy. Yes, he did kill Dumbledore, but there are signs both in that scene and in Harry's pursuit of him that suggest there's more to it than Snape is on the Dark Side. This isn't a Lucasian world where a single act of good can redeem a murder (a la Vader at the end of RotJ). And Snape, unlike Draco, *chose* to take on the task should Malfoy prove unable. He elected to take the oath; he wasn't under anyone's compulsion. I don't think there's any way to recover from that. This is true. However, I think it's clear that Snape may have been told to do whatever it takes to stay in Voldemort's inner circle. *And* Dumbledore's pleading with Snape could just as easily have been him pleading for Snape to do what was necessary to save Malfoy and his family. Not to mention that it was just as possible that even Snape couldn't take on four Death Eaters, meaning if he tried to save Albus all that would have happened was that everyone (including Dumbledore) would have died pointlessly. Finally, his parting shot to Harry: Blocked again and again and again, Potter, until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed. Sounds like good advice to me. And while Voldemort is supposed to kill Harry, as Snape points out, why not stun him and bring him to the Dark Lord rather than let him go? Voldy already proved he's not above having Harry served up on a platter in GoF. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Uplift locations and dates. Hey, Alberto?
Perhaps I've missed something rather obvious, but... Why don't you guys just ask Brin about all these niggling lil' details? This is his list, and it's not like he's dead. ~Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Uplift locations and dates. Hey, Alberto?
In a message dated 7/19/2005 8:28:53 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why don't you guys just ask Brin about all these niggling lil' details? This is his list, and it's not like he's dead. But, and this is the Gawds honest truth, we know more about the dating than he does. Vilyehm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Uplift locations and dates. Hey, Alberto?
On 7/19/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/19/2005 8:28:53 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why don't you guys just ask Brin about all these niggling lil' details? This is his list, and it's not like he's dead. But, and this is the Gawds honest truth, we know more about the dating than he does. Vilyehm /boggles. ~Maru heh, 'boggles'. Wonder if that's actually a word. Later... Hmm. Did you know that the OED says that Boggle was originally derived from a wraith that a horse sees and is spooked by, and the use of boggle as a synonym for incredulity, astonishment etc. is very recent? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Uplift locations and dates. Hey, Alberto?
In a message dated 7/19/2005 8:47:28 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But, and this is the Gawds honest truth, we know more about the dating than he does. Vilyehm /boggles. Dr. Brin is not a bible thumper. But not in the curses by William T. Goodall sense of the word. From Sundiver to Startide Rising to Uplift War to the Uplift Storm trilogy, when Brin writes something new, he does not have a card file, computer file, or 'bible' of previously stated facts. Heck, the most famous twist/mistake is in Heaven's Reach where the alien has two arms in one chapter and four arms in a later chapter. Vilyehm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
