Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Ian and dates

Expand Messages
  • Michael Davies
    ... What we have are expert witnesses who generally come down on 80-90 for Mt/Lk (I mean academics). We don t really think all that much of their arguments for
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 31, 1999
      Me:
      > >This question should be right up your alley: "What texts prior to
      > >Justin do we have wherein we will certainly expect to find references to the
      > >gospels which, in fact, lack such references?" (Requiring, of course,
      > >some reason to think texts you suggest are indeed ones in which we will
      > >certainly expect to find such references.) If there are no such texts
      > >then, of course, you will admit your implication above is specious.

      Ian:
      > The question is irrelevant. We are dealing with the historical
      > applicability of the contents of the gospels. Justin merely seems to be the
      > first to attest to them. It seems to be difficult to get the idea that one
      > has to give credentials to a witness before being able to use such. In a
      > court of law there are a few categories, one being eye-witnesses (we don't
      > seem to have any that we can point to), then we have expert witnesses
      > (again, which texts have the credentials?).

      What we have are expert witnesses who generally come down on 80-90
      for Mt/Lk (I mean academics). We don't really think all that much of
      their arguments for dating, but we don't have any good reasons to
      think they are wrong. You have repeatedly reported your thought that
      e.g. Acts is much later than this... but so far as you have opened
      your mind to us you base that thought on lack of attestation in other
      texts, hence the relevance of my question above. As far as "saducees"
      go (and I care no hoot) a dating of Mt at 80 means saducees were
      annoying Mt at that date. Far as I can tell Acts was written in 60
      for reasons exhaustively given previously, Luke 3+ maybe 80, Luke 1-2
      maybe 90. You got a problem with that?

      Steve

      > Josephus, for example, is sometimes an eye-witness and sometimes an expert
      > witness and then sometimes neither. One uses Josephus with great risk as
      > there is little overlap with other writings.
      >
      >
      > Ian
      >
      >
      >
    • Ian Hutchesson
      ... We aren t playing academic pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey. The academics as you want to call them are the lawyers, not the witnesses. ... Let s put it another
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 31, 1999
        At 00.05 01/04/99 -0500, Steve Davies wrote:
        >Ian:
        >> We are dealing with the historical
        >> applicability of the contents of the gospels. Justin merely seems to be the
        >> first to attest to them. It seems to be difficult to get the idea that one
        >> has to give credentials to a witness before being able to use such. In a
        >> court of law there are a few categories, one being eye-witnesses (we don't
        >> seem to have any that we can point to), then we have expert witnesses
        >> (again, which texts have the credentials?).
        >
        >What we have are expert witnesses who generally come down on 80-90
        >for Mt/Lk (I mean academics).

        We aren't playing academic pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey.

        The academics as you want to call them are the lawyers, not the witnesses.

        >We don't really think all that much of
        >their arguments for dating, but we don't have any good reasons to
        >think they are wrong.

        Let's put it another way: we don't have any good reasons to think they are
        right. It might be conscience stimulating to think that way, they don't get
        called academics for such crystal-ball work.

        >You have repeatedly reported your thought that
        >e.g. Acts is much later than this... but so far as you have opened
        >your mind to us you base that thought on lack of attestation in other
        >texts, hence the relevance of my question above.

        Citations: there are none that are early.

        >As far as "saducees"
        >go (and I care no hoot) a dating of Mt at 80 means saducees were
        >annoying Mt at that date.

        Limp, Steve. You mightn't like it, but the best you can get is possible
        references to Mt in Ignatius -- and that's making assumptions. There is
        nothing in GMatt that gives any indication of contact with Sadducees.

        >Far as I can tell Acts was written in 60
        >for reasons exhaustively given previously,

        You like the idea. You like the idea. You like the idea. And you like the
        idea. You have nothing tangible to back it up.

        >Luke 3+ maybe 80, Luke 1-2
        >maybe 90. You got a problem with that?

        There is nothing textual and no manuscripts to support such ideas. Despite
        the plague avoidance approach to argument from silence, such an approach is
        developed because there is no other way of dealing with the consistent lack
        of really early Christian documentation. So you turn that lack into an
        argument: "you can't say that, you're simply arguing from silence." It used
        to be called circumstantial evidence -- well, it still is in
        non-Christian-academic circles.

        When you have Christian writers of the second century making their own
        theological arguments, it is hard not to conclude that they didn't have any
        other choice, as one tends to use what is already in existence to save
        effort and thought.


        Ian
      • Michael Davies
        ... Gosh. I ve lost the tail of the metaphoric snake here. What we have, far as I know, are people with more credibility than you ve got saying things you
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 31, 1999
          > >What we have are expert witnesses who generally come down on 80-90
          > >for Mt/Lk (I mean academics).
          >
          > We aren't playing academic pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey.
          >
          > The academics as you want to call them are the lawyers, not the witnesses.

          Gosh. I've lost the tail of the metaphoric snake here. What we have,
          far as I know, are people with more credibility than you've got
          saying things you disagree with (on no known grounds) and thus
          you are to be thought correct and them wrong.

          > >We don't really think all that much of
          > >their arguments for dating, but we don't have any good reasons to
          > >think they are wrong.
          >
          > Let's put it another way: we don't have any good reasons to think they are
          > right. It might be conscience stimulating to think that way, they don't get
          > called academics for such crystal-ball work.

          They're called academics because they get paid by academic places and
          have gone through years of intiatiatory study and publication and so
          forth. Therefore they are right until proven wrong. Or they are right
          until a better theory than theirs is given. (which isn't quite the
          same thing) Far as I can tell you assert "They are wrong."
          Well, that's rather Yuri-ish as far as it goes, and goes not far.
          It's a nothing.

          I cannot believe that you are arguing "because they are academics
          they are wrong" and so "I am right" and that's the extent of it.
          But thus far I've seen nothing else forthcoming.

          > >You have repeatedly reported your thought that
          > >e.g. Acts is much later than this... but so far as you have opened
          > >your mind to us you base that thought on lack of attestation in other
          > >texts, hence the relevance of my question above.
          >
          > Citations: there are none that are early.

          Recall the Question I asked today? You spurned the question. Recall
          it, if you will, and save me the trouble of reiterating.

          > >As far as "saducees"
          > >go (and I care no hoot) a dating of Mt at 80 means saducees were
          > >annoying Mt at that date.
          >
          > Limp, Steve. You mightn't like it, but the best you can get is possible
          > references to Mt in Ignatius -- and that's making assumptions. There is
          > nothing in GMatt that gives any indication of contact with Sadducees.

          So... the logic is that Matthew adds Saducees to his text in a manner
          detrimental to Saducees vis the Mt audience. But. Behold. Mt never
          heard of them in his life nor, thus, did he have the slightest
          against them. I have no clue what the hell you think you are making
          by way of argument here... and yet still I think you are capable of
          making one. Call me Mr. Moron, I don't care... I think you could come
          through.

          > >Far as I can tell Acts was written in 60
          > >for reasons exhaustively given previously,
          >
          > You like the idea. You like the idea. You like the idea. And you like the
          > idea. You have nothing tangible to back it up.

          By tangible you mean actual carbon dating of an autograph text
          from 60? If not, what?

          > >Luke 3+ maybe 80, Luke 1-2
          > >maybe 90. You got a problem with that?
          >
          > There is nothing textual and no manuscripts to support such ideas. Despite
          > the plague avoidance approach to argument from silence, such an approach is
          > developed because there is no other way of dealing with the consistent lack
          > of really early Christian documentation. So you turn that lack into an
          > argument: "you can't say that, you're simply arguing from silence." It used
          > to be called circumstantial evidence -- well, it still is in
          > non-Christian-academic circles.
          >
          > When you have Christian writers of the second century making their own
          > theological arguments, it is hard not to conclude that they didn't have any
          > other choice, as one tends to use what is already in existence to save
          > effort and thought.

          Is this the "internet fallacy" whereby we assume that all texts in
          the Roman Empire were instantly available to everybody?

          Since I already asked you to answer the question you spurned I shan't
          again do so. Nor shall I, as I sometimes do for folks, try to outline
          for you the argument you are evidently trying to make but not making.
          Rather, in the irenic spirit for which I am justly famed, I'd ask you
          to say what on earth it is you are trying to say. OK? Mt is ca 175?
          Acts is fifth century? Because....

          Don't make me guess, tell me. [Hint: "Acts is not mentioned in text
          X from date Y and we know that text X would have mentioned it
          and therefore Acts was written after date Y" would help.] But perhaps
          you have some other line of reasoning. ["The experts are all wrong" is
          not, as such, a line of reasoning despite its frequent occurance in email
          letters.]

          Steve
        • Ian Hutchesson
          ... What we ve got is Steve with nothing better than refuge in authority. (The world is not flat, nor is it the centre of the cosmos, even though authorities
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 1, 1999
            At 01.02 01/04/99 -0500, Michael Davies wrote:
            >
            >> >What we have are expert witnesses who generally come down on 80-90
            >> >for Mt/Lk (I mean academics).
            >>
            >> We aren't playing academic pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey.
            >>
            >> The academics as you want to call them are the lawyers, not the witnesses.
            >
            >Gosh. I've lost the tail of the metaphoric snake here. What we have,
            >far as I know, are people with more credibility than you've got
            >saying things you disagree with (on no known grounds) and thus
            >you are to be thought correct and them wrong.

            What we've got is Steve with nothing better than refuge in authority. (The
            world is not flat, nor is it the centre of the cosmos, even though
            authorities at one stage enforced such views.)

            We are working on the validation of ancient texts as witnesses to be used
            in an attempt to reconstruct the past. Those people who use the witnesses
            are the lawyers.

            Josephus, writing on the war is an eye-witness to the events; Josephus
            writing about Herod is an expert witness (his testimony has been verified a
            number of times through archaeology and pagan literature). Still such a
            witness needs constant analysis to see the "real value" of his testimony.
            The people who submit the witnesses to such analysis are the academics you
            fondly refer to. They are the ones who manipulate the witnesses to attempt
            to reconstruct the past.

            >> >We don't really think all that much of
            >> >their arguments for dating, but we don't have any good reasons to
            >> >think they are wrong.
            >>
            >> Let's put it another way: we don't have any good reasons to think they are
            >> right. It might be conscience stimulating to think that way, they don't get
            >> called academics for such crystal-ball work.
            >
            >They're called academics because they get paid by academic places and
            >have gone through years of intiatiatory study and publication and so
            >forth. Therefore they are right until proven wrong.

            This is downright silly, Steve. So one is right because they are paid to
            declaim whatever it is they declaim.

            >Or they are right
            >until a better theory than theirs is given.

            More of the same vain.

            >(which isn't quite the
            >same thing) Far as I can tell you assert "They are wrong."

            Not exactly. I have said that they have not been shown to be right and that
            they have not shown any historical means for coming to the conclusions they
            have. They have been avoided in the "harder" studies (Assyriology,
            Egyptology, Greek and Roman studies), because they have nothing solider on
            which to base their theories than undatable texts, whose genre is never
            quite clear (though obviously not written for historical or chronological
            purposes).

            >Well, that's rather Yuri-ish as far as it goes, and goes not far.
            >It's a nothing.
            >
            >I cannot believe that you are arguing "because they are academics
            >they are wrong" and so "I am right" and that's the extent of it.
            >But thus far I've seen nothing else forthcoming.

            One of the things that has repressed DSS studies for nearly fifty years is
            the hegemony of silly ideas in the field proposed by academics analogous to
            the ones you refer to -- people who, like you, don't believe it is
            necessary to attempt to reconstruct the past, but to have a working theory
            (whatever that may be based on).

            We are at a point where we have documents whose dates we don't know, though
            there is a myriad of people who wish them to be one thing or another, AND
            THEN build fanciful theories on top of these vain datings.

            What we still come down to is that the texts cannot be dated, but their
            earliest recognisable usage of some of them is in the 160s. That is the one
            solid point we actually have in the whole process of guesswork that has
            gone before us.

            > > >You have repeatedly reported your thought that
            >> >e.g. Acts is much later than this... but so far as you have opened
            >> >your mind to us you base that thought on lack of attestation in other
            >> >texts, hence the relevance of my question above.
            >>
            >> Citations: there are none that are early.
            >
            >Recall the Question I asked today? You spurned the question. Recall
            >it, if you will, and save me the trouble of reiterating.

            The question cannot be taken as serious when trying to deal with what
            actually happened. Yet that is the par for the course. Everyone here,
            stimulating themselves into thinking they are working on research into
            finding something they euphemistically call the historical Jesus, think
            they can cut a course through the documents and find the speck of truth in
            the riddle.

            Your question is based on faith not method. It is not aimed at getting to
            what can be said about the times we are attempting to deal with, it is
            aimed at defending a spurious use of the documents.

            >> >As far as "saducees"
            >> >go (and I care no hoot) a dating of Mt at 80 means saducees were
            >> >annoying Mt at that date.
            >>
            >> Limp, Steve. You mightn't like it, but the best you can get is possible
            >> references to Mt in Ignatius -- and that's making assumptions. There is
            >> nothing in GMatt that gives any indication of contact with Sadducees.
            >
            >So... the logic is that Matthew adds Saducees to his text in a manner
            >detrimental to Saducees vis the Mt audience. But. Behold. Mt never
            >heard of them in his life nor,

            Attempted parody, based on misrepresentation doesn't make it successful
            parody. No-one claims that the writer involved or the audience hadn't heard
            of the Sadducees. However the Pharisaic animosity toward them reveals the
            position that they were against resurrection. This is meat for gospel
            construction. The view provided by the Pharisees could also just as easily
            develop the Matthean additions to the leaven of the Pharisees. Do you
            really want to tell me that this is a strange idea, Steve?

            >thus, did he have the slightest
            >against them. I have no clue what the hell you think you are making
            >by way of argument here... and yet still I think you are capable of
            >making one. Call me Mr. Moron, I don't care... I think you could come
            >through.
            >
            >> >Far as I can tell Acts was written in 60
            >> >for reasons exhaustively given previously,
            >>
            >> You like the idea. You like the idea. You like the idea. And you like the
            >> idea. You have nothing tangible to back it up.
            >
            >By tangible you mean actual carbon dating of an autograph text
            >from 60? If not, what?

            Hey, you're the one proposing 60. What on, fresh air? A pack of
            "academics"? I'll swap you three academics for a new ancient text.

            Naturally an autograph is not necessary! A good copy will do fine. (-:

            What about clear gospel knowledge in the early fathers?

            >> >Luke 3+ maybe 80, Luke 1-2
            >> >maybe 90. You got a problem with that?
            >>
            >> There is nothing textual and no manuscripts to support such ideas. Despite
            >> the plague avoidance approach to argument from silence, such an approach is
            >> developed because there is no other way of dealing with the consistent lack
            >> of really early Christian documentation. So you turn that lack into an
            >> argument: "you can't say that, you're simply arguing from silence." It used
            >> to be called circumstantial evidence -- well, it still is in
            >> non-Christian-academic circles.
            >>
            >> When you have Christian writers of the second century making their own
            >> theological arguments, it is hard not to conclude that they didn't have any
            >> other choice, as one tends to use what is already in existence to save
            >> effort and thought.
            >
            >Is this the "internet fallacy" whereby we assume that all texts in
            >the Roman Empire were instantly available to everybody?

            How ironic, Steve. If the gospel texts existed at an early time, they may
            not have been available to the early fathers, though they were available
            enough for a number of different gospels to have developed based on shared
            materials from different literary sources.

            >Since I already asked you to answer the question you spurned I shan't
            >again do so. Nor shall I, as I sometimes do for folks, try to outline
            >for you the argument you are evidently trying to make but not making.
            >Rather, in the irenic spirit for which I am justly famed, I'd ask you
            >to say what on earth it is you are trying to say. OK? Mt is ca 175?
            >Acts is fifth century? Because....

            How about trying to set about the serious work of dating the documents?
            And, if one can't get before 160 through historical method, one should get
            out of the hysterical jesus business (as being untenable), and move back
            into the clearer realm of theology. Or is the conflict between belief and
            intellect so overburdening?


            Ian

            I find that there is more chance of getting something tangible out of the
            family of texts that includes Theophilus, Minucius Felix, Athenagoras and
            even Col 1:15-17, as well as Philo.

            >Don't make me guess, tell me. [Hint: "Acts is not mentioned in text
            >X from date Y and we know that text X would have mentioned it
            >and therefore Acts was written after date Y" would help.] But perhaps
            >you have some other line of reasoning. ["The experts are all wrong" is
            >not, as such, a line of reasoning despite its frequent occurance in email
            >letters.]
          • joe baxter
            At 09:48 PM 4/1/99 +0200, Ian wrote: one should get ... Perhaps Tom Simms is right. Ian does work for the Vatican. Sounds like a Jesuit. The hounds of God. Joe
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 2, 1999
              At 09:48 PM 4/1/99 +0200, Ian wrote:

              one should get
              >out of the hysterical jesus business (as being untenable), and move back
              >into the clearer realm of theology.

              Perhaps Tom Simms is right. Ian does work for the Vatican. Sounds like a
              Jesuit. The hounds of God.


              Joe
            • Tom Simms
              ... No. I said Ian lives close enough he could do RESEARCH in the Vatican not Work for them. Since Ian and Steve are dating the Vatican wouldn t want either of
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 3, 1999
                On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 22:32:31 -0800 (PST), joseph@... writes:
                >
                >At 09:48 PM 4/1/99 +0200, Ian wrote:
                >
                > one should get
                >>out of the hysterical jesus business (as being untenable), and move back
                >>into the clearer realm of theology.
                >
                >Perhaps Tom Simms is right. Ian does work for the Vatican. Sounds like a
                >Jesuit. The hounds of God.


                No. I said Ian lives close enough he could do RESEARCH in the Vatican
                not Work for them.

                Since Ian and Steve are dating the Vatican wouldn't want either of them...

                Tom

                >
                >Joe
                >
                >
              • joe baxter
                ... How can Ian get inside the inner library at the Vatican unless he on the inside? What do you think they do in there, anyway, Tom. Joe
                Message 7 of 14 , Apr 3, 1999
                  At 07:38 AM 4/3/99 AST, Tom wrote:
                  >On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 22:32:31 -0800 (PST), joseph@... writes:
                  >>
                  >>At 09:48 PM 4/1/99 +0200, Ian wrote:
                  >>
                  >> one should get
                  >>>out of the hysterical jesus business (as being untenable), and move back
                  >>>into the clearer realm of theology.
                  >>
                  >>Perhaps Tom Simms is right. Ian does work for the Vatican. Sounds like a
                  >>Jesuit. The hounds of God.
                  >
                  >
                  > No. I said Ian lives close enough he could do RESEARCH in the Vatican
                  > not Work for them.
                  >
                  > Since Ian and Steve are dating the Vatican wouldn't want either of them...

                  How can Ian get inside the inner library at the Vatican unless he on the
                  inside? What do you think they do in there, anyway, Tom.

                  Joe
                • Tom Simms
                  ... They don t date openly... Tom
                  Message 8 of 14 , Apr 3, 1999
                    On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 06:26:31 -0800 (PST), joseph@... writes:
                    >
                    >At 07:38 AM 4/3/99 AST, Tom wrote:
                    >>On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 22:32:31 -0800 (PST), joseph@... writes:
                    >>>
                    >>>At 09:48 PM 4/1/99 +0200, Ian wrote:
                    >>>
                    >>> one should get
                    >>>>out of the hysterical jesus business (as being untenable), and move back
                    >>>>into the clearer realm of theology.
                    >>>
                    >>>Perhaps Tom Simms is right. Ian does work for the Vatican. Sounds like a
                    >>>Jesuit. The hounds of God.
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> No. I said Ian lives close enough he could do RESEARCH in the Vatican
                    >> not Work for them.
                    >>
                    >> Since Ian and Steve are dating the Vatican wouldn't want either of them...
                    >
                    >How can Ian get inside the inner library at the Vatican unless he on the
                    >inside? What do you think they do in there, anyway, Tom.
                    >
                    >Joe



                    They don't date openly... <s smirk>

                    Tom
                    >
                  • Ian Hutchesson
                    ... You ve seen what Joe quoted above. Look at where it came from and say whether you think that he deliberately misrepresented what I was saying or that he is
                    Message 9 of 14 , Apr 3, 1999
                      At 22.32 02/04/99 -0800, joe baxter wrote:
                      >At 09:48 PM 4/1/99 +0200, Ian wrote:
                      >
                      >>one should get
                      >>out of the hysterical jesus business (as being untenable), and move back
                      >>into the clearer realm of theology.
                      >
                      >Perhaps Tom Simms is right. Ian does work for the Vatican. Sounds like a
                      >Jesuit. The hounds of God.

                      You've seen what Joe quoted above. Look at where it came from and say
                      whether you think that he deliberately misrepresented what I was saying or
                      that he is merely showing he hasn't got a clue?
                      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Steve:
                      >in the irenic spirit for which I am justly famed, I'd ask you
                      >to say what on earth it is you are trying to say. OK? Mt is ca 175?
                      >Acts is fifth century? Because....

                      Ian:
                      How about trying to set about the serious work of dating the documents?
                      And, if one can't get before 160 through historical method, one should get
                      out of the hysterical jesus business (as being untenable), and move back
                      into the clearer realm of theology. Or is the conflict between belief and
                      intellect so overburdening?
                      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Ian

                      (Joe, would you like a Dr Seuss version?)
                    • joe baxter
                      Father Hutchessini feels he has been parsed none too parsimoniously. Rather it is his super-minimalist method, which all too often, parses the subject. He
                      Message 10 of 14 , Apr 3, 1999
                        Father Hutchessini feels he has been parsed none too parsimoniously. Rather
                        it is his super-minimalist method, which all too often, parses the subject.
                        He criticizes, yet refuses to answer questions, and refuses to set forth
                        his own position. Does he suggest a method for getting before 160? No. He
                        instead suggests it may be untenable. And ever so briefly, we see the clouds
                        part and catch a glimpse of the blue skies of his theology.

                        Of course, Father, this was all intended by a tongue still parsing its
                        cheek. What I really wanted to know had to do with the books in the inner
                        Vatican library. Are they hiding the Gospel of Hebrews? Do they have the
                        stolen Himis manuscript?

                        With kind regards,

                        Joe
                      • Ian Hutchesson
                        Joe, Would you stop being lazy and post only one message instead of the naff two. I am subscribed to the list, so I don t need you to send another post to me
                        Message 11 of 14 , Apr 4, 1999
                          Joe,

                          Would you stop being lazy and post only one message instead of the naff
                          two. I am subscribed to the list, so I don't need you to send another post
                          to me specifically.

                          At 23.41 03/04/99 -0800, joe baxter wrote:
                          >Father Hutchessini feels he has been parsed none too parsimoniously.

                          No, Joe. I said, either you were deliberately misrepresenting me or you
                          were showing that you didn't have a clue. (A naughty dilemma.)

                          >Rather
                          >it is his super-minimalist method, which all too often, parses the subject.
                          >He criticizes, yet refuses to answer questions, and refuses to set forth
                          >his own position. Does he suggest a method for getting before 160? No.

                          This is a problem for the hysterical jesusers. They are the ones playing
                          historians. If they can't get before 160 CE, then they are wasting their
                          time, aren't they, Joey?

                          >He
                          >instead suggests it may be untenable.

                          Well, no-one -- including you -- has found a way to break the barrier. Go
                          ahead, Joe, prove me wrong. I'm always willing to listen to reason.

                          >And ever so briefly, we see the clouds
                          >part and catch a glimpse of the blue skies of his theology.

                          Your imagination is working overtime.

                          >Of course, Father, this was all intended by a tongue still parsing its
                          >cheek.

                          Seems more like you've bitten it, making your linguistic skills go further
                          downhill. No more french-kissing for you for a while, laddie.

                          >What I really wanted to know had to do with the books in the inner
                          >Vatican library.

                          Why don't you ask them?

                          >Are they hiding the Gospel of Hebrews? Do they have the
                          >stolen Himis manuscript?

                          If it isn't available, Joe, ie you haven't see the actual thingy, how do
                          you know it is real?


                          Ian

                          (Please note, this post goes only to the list. It does not take much energy
                          to post only one message: just cut the CC field and paste it into the To
                          field. OK? Or is the idea too difficult for you to parse?)
                        • joe baxter
                          ... Who s lazy? The system is engineered to give you two messages. With a click you can eliminate the 2nd. That s simpler than pasting. Also removes your name
                          Message 12 of 14 , Apr 4, 1999
                            At 10:00 AM 4/4/99 +0200, Ian wrote:
                            >Joe,
                            >
                            >Would you stop being lazy and post only one message instead of the naff
                            >two. I am subscribed to the list, so I don't need you to send another post
                            >to me specifically.

                            Who's lazy? The system is engineered to give you two messages. With a click
                            you can eliminate the 2nd. That's simpler than pasting. Also removes your
                            name from the header, something that is useful. But out of deference to you,
                            Fr., I will paste so that you can save a half second and roll it into your
                            response.


                            >This is a problem for the hysterical jesusers. They are the ones playing
                            >historians. If they can't get before 160 CE, then they are wasting their
                            >time, aren't they, Joey?

                            >Well, no-one -- including you -- has found a way to break the barrier. Go
                            >ahead, Joe, prove me wrong. I'm always willing to listen to reason.

                            So you have created a wall at 160. Why that date? What burden of proof do
                            you demand of those who would cross your barrier? "Most plausible", "more
                            likely than not," "clear and convincing evidence," "beyond a reasonable
                            doubt," or "absolute certainty." Seems like the latter.

                            With kind regards,

                            Joe
                          • Ian Hutchesson
                            ... Darling, when you get umpteen doublets, you d appreciate small kindnesses. So, thank you. ... It s only approximate, but that is roughly when Justin wrote
                            Message 13 of 14 , Apr 5, 1999
                              At 22.49 04/04/99 -0700, joe baxter wrote:
                              >At 10:00 AM 4/4/99 +0200, Ian wrote:
                              >>Would you stop being lazy and post only one message instead of the naff
                              >>two....
                              >
                              >Who's lazy? The system is engineered to give you two messages. With a click
                              >you can eliminate the 2nd. That's simpler than pasting. Also removes your
                              >name from the header, something that is useful. But out of deference to you,
                              >Fr., I will paste so that you can save a half second and roll it into your
                              >response.

                              Darling, when you get umpteen doublets, you'd appreciate small kindnesses.
                              So, thank you.

                              >>This is a problem for the hysterical jesusers. They are the ones playing
                              >>historians. If they can't get before 160 CE, then they are wasting their
                              >>time, aren't they, Joey?
                              >
                              >>Well, no-one -- including you -- has found a way to break the barrier. Go
                              >>ahead, Joe, prove me wrong. I'm always willing to listen to reason.
                              >
                              >So you have created a wall at 160. Why that date?

                              It's only approximate, but that is roughly when Justin wrote his stuff
                              making nice clear reference to certain gospel information.

                              >What burden of proof do
                              >you demand of those who would cross your barrier? "Most plausible", "more
                              >likely than not," "clear and convincing evidence," "beyond a reasonable
                              >doubt," or "absolute certainty." Seems like the latter.

                              When you attempt to do history and not the sort of waffling that hysterical
                              jesusism usually means, you need good dates, not "well, maybe, it seems to
                              me, seeing as I'd like it to be so" type dating.


                              Ian
                            • Tom Simms
                              ... Then you need to know how to de-engineer it. Yesterday, one of my machines was demanding a new date/time entry each time I booted up. Spent the day moving
                              Message 14 of 14 , Apr 5, 1999
                                On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 22:49:04 -0700 (PDT), joseph@... writes:

                                >At 10:00 AM 4/4/99 +0200, Ian wrote:
                                >>Joe,
                                >>
                                >>Would you stop being lazy and post only one message instead of the naff
                                >>two. I am subscribed to the list, so I don't need you to send another post
                                >>to me specifically.
                                >
                                >Who's lazy? The system is engineered to give you two messages. With a click
                                >you can eliminate the 2nd. That's simpler than pasting. Also removes your
                                >name from the header, something that is useful. But out of deference to you,
                                >Fr., I will paste so that you can save a half second and roll it into your
                                >response.

                                Then you need to know how to de-engineer it. Yesterday, one of my
                                machines was demanding a new date/time entry each time I booted up.
                                Spent the day moving memory boards trying to get the system battery
                                out but then discovered the autoexec.bat file had vanished when I'd
                                aced scandisk files, copied and installed one from another machine
                                (deleting the systems not needed) and zap, did it work! The loss may
                                have been from a month ago...the perils of sloppy housekeeping. I
                                see Ian snapped your garter in two short lines and more neatly than
                                I just have...

                                Now I'm nearly 70, a techno-klutz, but i could do that. what's wrong
                                with you. When someone has thirty or forty messages, having to read
                                every other one unnecessarily is a drag.

                                Wise up to net courtesy. Makes for easier net flaming.


                                >>This is a problem for the hysterical jesusers. They are the ones playing
                                >>historians. If they can't get before 160 CE, then they are wasting their
                                >>time, aren't they, Joey?
                                >
                                >>Well, no-one -- including you -- has found a way to break the barrier. Go
                                >>ahead, Joe, prove me wrong. I'm always willing to listen to reason.
                                >
                                >So you have created a wall at 160. Why that date? What burden of proof do
                                >you demand of those who would cross your barrier? "Most plausible", "more
                                >likely than not," "clear and convincing evidence," "beyond a reasonable
                                >doubt," or "absolute certainty." Seems like the latter.
                                >
                                >With kind regards,
                                >
                                >Joe

                                Tom Simms
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.