With any luck, he will ESAD.
It was not in dispute in 1822, when they *finally* *completely* cleared
Has anybody read what they actually *said* in their formal statement (plus
Hey, but you know if you paint your CDs GREEN ...
Sorry, my rant was much too condensed to be intelligible.
I don't know quite what you're talking about, or why you seem to think
Yes. 1822, in fact. Before that, of course, everyone knew it, but they had
Yes indeed, never be so nasty as to speak unpleasant truths about people
At this point, I don't know when your "when" is. But, as stated, they did
Duh. But of course threatening him to get him to stop the geocentric
Sure thing. As I said, they knew that in 1822, and of course the Jesuits
Pulling foreign investment might get complicated.
.. . .
BP used that same excuse with the transAlaska pipeline.
I bet that would make you happy.
---
---
What is the wager?
Ah, I begin to understand now. You simply don't know what sources are, andOn 27 Aug 2008 19:22:11 GMT, "Dan Drake" <dd@dandrake.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:40:03 UTC, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
wrote:
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
And only a few years ago admitted that Geocentrism was wrong.
No they didnt. They actually admitted that they treated Galileo badly at that time.
At the heart of the bad treatment was Galileo's recalcitrance
in recanting his support of Copernicus' heliocentric system.
Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the
earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that
most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.
In the end, though, the church broke him and he did recant, so
their recent admission of guilt in treating him badly was tantamount
to their accepting Copernicus's geocentric system as true.
Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the
earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that
most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.
It was not in dispute in 1822, when they *finally* *completely* cleared
Galileo's work for unrestricted publication; before that, when they made
some moves in that direction, it's much less clear, despite frequent
claims that hte Church had it all settled in 1700-whatever.
Department of satirical prophecy: Galileo wrote a note in the margin of a
copy of the Dialogue that the theologians should take care, because later
on it might be decided that Earth really does move, and then the ones
holding to the old view might have to be persecuted as heretics! So, in
1822, there was a stubborn censor who would not clear the work for
publication, and the Holy Office (Inquisition) had to threaten him!
[Sorry about the two screamers, but this is just too much fun.]
See Annibale Fantoli, "Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church", p.
357. Published by the Vatican Observatory, by the way. <big grin
And didnt have the balls to even mention Bruno.
Not true.
Fraid so.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
"Four hundred years after his execution, official expression of
"profound sorrow" and acknowledgement of error at Bruno's
condemnation to death was made, during the papacy of John Paul II."
That wasnt when they fessed up to the fools they had made of themselves over Galileo.
Has anybody read what they actually *said* in their formal statement (plus
other pronunciamenti at the time)? I haven't, so it would be nice to hear
specifics from someone who had. The text that happens to reside in a
WIkipedia article at any given time is, sadly enough, not an authority
anyone could rely on.
---
If you haven't read what they actually *said* in their formal
statement (plus other pronunciamenti at the time) you might want to,
in order to determine whether the text, which you're condemning as not
being authoritative, really wasn't.
JF
---On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:05:34 UTC, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On 27 Aug 2008 19:22:11 GMT, "Dan Drake" <dd@dandrake.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:40:03 UTC, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
wrote:
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
And only a few years ago admitted that Geocentrism was wrong.
No they didnt. They actually admitted that they treated Galileo badly at that time.
At the heart of the bad treatment was Galileo's recalcitrance
in recanting his support of Copernicus' heliocentric system.
Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the
earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that
most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.
In the end, though, the church broke him and he did recant, so
their recent admission of guilt in treating him badly was tantamount
to their accepting Copernicus's geocentric system as true.
Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the
earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that
most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.
It was not in dispute in 1822, when they *finally* *completely* cleared
Galileo's work for unrestricted publication; before that, when they made
some moves in that direction, it's much less clear, despite frequent
claims that hte Church had it all settled in 1700-whatever.
Department of satirical prophecy: Galileo wrote a note in the margin of a
copy of the Dialogue that the theologians should take care, because later
on it might be decided that Earth really does move, and then the ones
holding to the old view might have to be persecuted as heretics! So, in
1822, there was a stubborn censor who would not clear the work for
publication, and the Holy Office (Inquisition) had to threaten him!
[Sorry about the two screamers, but this is just too much fun.]
See Annibale Fantoli, "Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church", p.
357. Published by the Vatican Observatory, by the way. <big grin
And didnt have the balls to even mention Bruno.
Not true.
Fraid so.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
"Four hundred years after his execution, official expression of
"profound sorrow" and acknowledgement of error at Bruno's
condemnation to death was made, during the papacy of John Paul II."
That wasnt when they fessed up to the fools they had made of themselves over Galileo.
Has anybody read what they actually *said* in their formal statement (plus
other pronunciamenti at the time)? I haven't, so it would be nice to hear
specifics from someone who had. The text that happens to reside in a
WIkipedia article at any given time is, sadly enough, not an authority
anyone could rely on.
---
If you haven't read what they actually *said* in their formal
statement (plus other pronunciamenti at the time) you might want to,
in order to determine whether the text, which you're condemning as not
being authoritative, really wasn't.
JF
Ah, I begin to understand now. You simply don't know what sources are, and
what "authoritative" means.
Hence it sure is a good thing that I didn't condemn Wikipedia over thatOn 02 Sep 2008 19:25:08 GMT, "Dan Drake" <dd@dandrake.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:05:34 UTC, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On 27 Aug 2008 19:22:11 GMT, "Dan Drake" <dd@dandrake.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:40:03 UTC, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
wrote:
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
And only a few years ago admitted that Geocentrism was wrong.
No they didnt. They actually admitted that they treated Galileo badly at that time.
At the heart of the bad treatment was Galileo's recalcitrance
in recanting his support of Copernicus' heliocentric system.
Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the
earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that
most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.
In the end, though, the church broke him and he did recant, so
their recent admission of guilt in treating him badly was tantamount
to their accepting Copernicus's geocentric system as true.
Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the
earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that
most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.
It was not in dispute in 1822, when they *finally* *completely* cleared
Galileo's work for unrestricted publication; before that, when they made
some moves in that direction, it's much less clear, despite frequent
claims that hte Church had it all settled in 1700-whatever.
Department of satirical prophecy: Galileo wrote a note in the margin of a
copy of the Dialogue that the theologians should take care, because later
on it might be decided that Earth really does move, and then the ones
holding to the old view might have to be persecuted as heretics! So, in
1822, there was a stubborn censor who would not clear the work for
publication, and the Holy Office (Inquisition) had to threaten him!
[Sorry about the two screamers, but this is just too much fun.]
See Annibale Fantoli, "Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church", p.
357. Published by the Vatican Observatory, by the way. <big grin
And didnt have the balls to even mention Bruno.
Not true.
Fraid so.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
"Four hundred years after his execution, official expression of
"profound sorrow" and acknowledgement of error at Bruno's
condemnation to death was made, during the papacy of John Paul II."
That wasnt when they fessed up to the fools they had made of themselves over Galileo.
Has anybody read what they actually *said* in their formal statement (plus
other pronunciamenti at the time)? I haven't, so it would be nice to hear
specifics from someone who had. The text that happens to reside in a
WIkipedia article at any given time is, sadly enough, not an authority
anyone could rely on.
---
If you haven't read what they actually *said* in their formal
statement (plus other pronunciamenti at the time) you might want to,
in order to determine whether the text, which you're condemning as not
being authoritative, really wasn't.
JF
Ah, I begin to understand now. You simply don't know what sources are, and
what "authoritative" means.
---
Actually, what I said was that since you admitted to ignorance with
reference to the content of their formal statements, then you really
had no factual basis for condemning Wikipedia for its article
Indeed, when I accuse someone of not understanding these concepts in the
---On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 22:02:18 UTC, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On 02 Sep 2008 19:25:08 GMT, "Dan Drake" <dd@dandrake.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:05:34 UTC, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On 27 Aug 2008 19:22:11 GMT, "Dan Drake" <dd@dandrake.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:40:03 UTC, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
wrote:
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
And only a few years ago admitted that Geocentrism was wrong.
No they didnt. They actually admitted that they treated Galileo badly at that time.
At the heart of the bad treatment was Galileo's recalcitrance
in recanting his support of Copernicus' heliocentric system.
Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the
earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that
most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.
In the end, though, the church broke him and he did recant, so
their recent admission of guilt in treating him badly was tantamount
to their accepting Copernicus's geocentric system as true.
Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the
earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that
most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.
It was not in dispute in 1822, when they *finally* *completely* cleared
Galileo's work for unrestricted publication; before that, when they made
some moves in that direction, it's much less clear, despite frequent
claims that hte Church had it all settled in 1700-whatever.
Department of satirical prophecy: Galileo wrote a note in the margin of a
copy of the Dialogue that the theologians should take care, because later
on it might be decided that Earth really does move, and then the ones
holding to the old view might have to be persecuted as heretics! So, in
1822, there was a stubborn censor who would not clear the work for
publication, and the Holy Office (Inquisition) had to threaten him!
[Sorry about the two screamers, but this is just too much fun.]
See Annibale Fantoli, "Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church", p.
357. Published by the Vatican Observatory, by the way. <big grin
And didnt have the balls to even mention Bruno.
Not true.
Fraid so.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
"Four hundred years after his execution, official expression of
"profound sorrow" and acknowledgement of error at Bruno's
condemnation to death was made, during the papacy of John Paul II."
That wasnt when they fessed up to the fools they had made of themselves over Galileo.
Has anybody read what they actually *said* in their formal statement (plus
other pronunciamenti at the time)? I haven't, so it would be nice to hear
specifics from someone who had. The text that happens to reside in a
WIkipedia article at any given time is, sadly enough, not an authority
anyone could rely on.
---
If you haven't read what they actually *said* in their formal
statement (plus other pronunciamenti at the time) you might want to,
in order to determine whether the text, which you're condemning as not
being authoritative, really wasn't.
JF
Ah, I begin to understand now. You simply don't know what sources are, and
what "authoritative" means.
---
Actually, what I said was that since you admitted to ignorance with
reference to the content of their formal statements, then you really
had no factual basis for condemning Wikipedia for its article
Hence it sure is a good thing that I didn't condemn Wikipedia over that
article -- as I mentioned in the posr above, though with a foolishly
idealistic notion that in pointing it out, I was beloaboring the obvious.
---
---
---