 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Brain damage:
> The man who mistook his wife for a hat
Very interesting book. All of the author's (Oliver Sacks) books, that I
have read,
are well worth reading.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> Did you look at the maps I posted, and the links to definitions?
>
Did you read the accompanying text on Wiki? The term "Bible Belt" is a
derisive term
coined by H. L. Mencken, a Baltimore journalist, who had a special
hatred for the
"south" and Baptists (exceeding his hatred for everything else). But I
don't want to do
Mencken injustice. He was a brilliant and witty writer and fun to read
even now. Try him if you
haven't. :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> like 90% of the people being "asked", never notice the substitution. The
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1aEqBaK3aM
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
> So you mean that the "Bible Belt" is where "Protestant Fundamentalism"
> (another prejudicial and emotive term)
What's prejudicial about the term? Are you saying there aren't protestant
fundamentalists?
> is "dominant" (whatever you mean by that).
So you're arguing with the words in definitions now? You don't know what the
word "dominant" applies to when used to refer to a population of people?
> Why call it the "Bible Belt"
Because it's a description of how people in that belt of land interpret the
bible. Do you not know the definition of "bible", or of "belt"?
> and what real evidence was used in drawing the maps? And
> who drew them? :)
I don't know, but it's been a term in common use for decades, so arguing
that it's meaningless is just playing silly buggers. You'd like to take
offense, but since there's really nothing to take offense at, you're having
a hard time coming up with reasonable objections.
Do you think that protestant fundamentalism *isn't* dominant in those areas,
compared to other religions?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
> Did you read the accompanying text on Wiki? The term "Bible Belt" is a
> derisive term
Not any more. Indeed, 25 years after it was coined, the president didn't
seem to have any problem using the term. I would imagine that after 90 or so
years of common usage, it may very well have lost its sting for most people,
including all those foreign countries that decided it was a good term to adopt.
And the page didn't say anything about it being derisive, but merely about
it being coined.
You really don't have to act offended or disgusted by someone using the same
terminology that Truman used 50 years ago. Unless, of course, offense is a
smokescreen for lack of content. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Do you think that protestant fundamentalism *isn't* dominant in those
> areas, compared to other religions?
>
What do you mean by "protestant fundamentalism"? The term
"fundamentalism" and
"fundamentalist" in current usage almost always refers to violent sects.
Other than that
they are almost always pejorative. And for that matter what do you mean
by "protestant"?
For instance the Baptist Church historically did not arise from the
"Protestant Reformation".
Also do you mean by "Bible Belt" an area where the Bible is read a lot
or do you mean an area
where the Bible is interpreted in a certain way? If the latter, then
it's a misnomer. Off course the
answer to some of the questions lies in the history of the term. "Bible
Belt" was coined by H. L.
Mencken as a derisive term. :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:49:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:10:36 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> This is basic child development stuff, sheesh..
>>
>> Well, you may have a background in child development. I don't.
>> Sheesh.
>>
>> Jim
> Actually, no I don't, but I read **a lot**, especially since, starting
> some 20 years ago, I had a fascination with AI, and the logical means to
> learn about why it didn't work well, once I found that, is to learn how
> the mind worked. My discovery was, sadly, that real brains don't work
> much better, they just have a more robust system of, "fill in the blanks
> and hope it works".
My point stands, you've read more about it than I do. So your expressed
"disdain" for what I said that you said was "basic child development
stuff" really was misplaced, which kinda was my point.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:31:15 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> I don't recall anyone ever teaching me how to interpret those visual
>> cues. I just knew it.
>
> You learned it. Visual clues are different in different societies and
> the misreading of them
> can be a great source of misunderstanding.
I don't see how that relates - I'm talking about understanding depth of
field.....?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-8-2009 1:57, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:07:05 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
>
>> andrel wrote:
>> A believer "knows", he/she will often deny believing as that
>>> suggests that there is another option. I know that no god exists, but
>>> at the same time acknowledge that others know that God does exist. An
>>> outsider who does not share the same believe/knowledge may classify it
>>> as (merely) a believe, for the believer it is knowledge. So whether it
>>> are synonyms or not depends on the observer.
>> Well, of course one is free to use any word to mean anything one likes,
>> and if it comforts one in one's faith to use "know" to mean "believe",
>> one is free to do so. But if one wants what he says or writes
>> to be understood .... :)
>
> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first, through
> the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive certainty. I've
> always considered "belief" to be something that is "knowledge gained
> instinctively, with such a certainty that it forms a basis for what you
> do in your life". I've not completed my own pontifications on this
> definition, but I do consider many people I know who are religious to
> have this kind of certainty about their beliefs - a certainty that makes
> it "knowledge" from their point of view.
>
That is also what I meant. The things that are just as obvious and
undeniable as 1+1=2.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I don't see how that relates - I'm talking about understanding depth of
> field.....?
I've even read of tribes of people living in rainforests for generations
who, when the researcher takes them out of the forest, are amazed that he
knows how to make cows the size of flies. Never having been able to see more
than a dozen yards in a straight line, they never got the whole perspective
thing figured out.
Not that I've ever been able to find a cite for that, but I remember reading
it long ago in a context that would imply it wasn't fictional.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
