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

Re: Steve and dates

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , Mar 31, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      > >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 2 of 14 , Apr 1, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 14 , Apr 2, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 14 , Apr 3, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 14 , Apr 3, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 14 , Apr 3, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 14 , Apr 3, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 14 , Apr 3, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 14 , Apr 4, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 14 , Apr 4, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 14 , Apr 5, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 14 , Apr 5, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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.