Sign of Genius

[Reddragonf66]

On 31 aug, 06:21, socratus <israel...@bezeqint.net> wrote:

- What do you read, Prince ?
- Words, words, words.
=================..

Etymology…………
Etymology is the study of the history of words — when they entered a
language,
 from what source, and how their form and meaning have changed over
time.

In Roman mythology, every man had a genius and every woman a juno
(Juno was also the name of the queen of the gods).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius_(mythology)

Roman etymology: every man had a genius  ( !!! )
Maybe “ genius” means “ soul ”. ( ? )

We also changed the meaning of words and created new abstractions.
A genius is a person of great intelligence ……. ( ? )http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius
=====================================
...|.. ggggggg

 

[Dan Drake]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:52:07 UTC, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 11:47:02 +1000, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote just the
pathetic excuse for a puerile troll thats all it can ever manage.

---
My, but you concede defeat ungracefully!

JF

Why do I suspect that it was never his intention to argue a case? I must
be a mean, suspicious bastard.

[Insert obligatory link to the Argument Clinic, but I'm too lazy.]


--
Dan Drake
dd@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com

 

[Dan Drake]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 00:36:38 UTC, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On 03 Sep 2008 22:14:46 GMT, "Dan Drake" <dd@dandrake.com> wrote:

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.

---
Somehow,

"The text that happens to reside in a WIkipedia article at any given
time is, sadly enough, not an authority anyone could rely on."

sounds, to me, somewhat like a blanket condemnation since you cast
aspersions on Wikipedia not only regarding the veracity of the article
in question, but also extended that condemnation to all of their
extant text.
---

And why the crack about "sources" and "authoritative?"

Hardly necessary unless you intended them as insults, yes?

JF

Indeed, when I accuse someone of not understanding these concepts in the
context of a supposedly serious discussion of history, I am without doubt
making an unfavorable comment. It would be objectively a good thing if I
were shown to be wrong, but I suppose the angels have given up hope on
that.

---
Perhaps the Angels have given up hope on you entirely.

My point wasn't whether you were right or wrong about my being right
or wrong, it was about your delivery, which was unnecessarily
confrontational if, in fact, you were interested in serious
discussion.

JF

Actually, without of course admitting blame or liability, I'll have to
claim that the weather here is just too hot, and, as you say, ill-advised
things were synthesized from the hot dilute soup on my keyboard. I'm
taking steps to prevent a recurrence.

Pax?


--
Dan Drake
dd@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 03:09:21 +0200, QuantumDot <dot@ohnoyoudont.co.za>
wrote:

On 2008-08-23 02:52:21 +0200, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> said:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this
sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

-- Jonathan Swift

This flushes 'em out like magic.


Bret Cahill




Just because you're obnoxious doesn't make you a genius. Or a tractor
driver, even.

John

I'm sure he'd be good as a plow behind said tractor.

---
Too soft. He might make good fertilizer though.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:04:28 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

Put out the dunce shoe and the dunces fall over themselves trying to
get their foot to fit.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this
sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

-- Jonathan Swift

This quote is usually self-applied by fools and kooks.

Not that that's true or anyithing but take a gander at the OP.

All I did was post the quote w/o comment.

By your theory the dunces immediately appeared and applied it to
themselves.

Those who are
truly insightful are also wise enough not to apply it publicly to
themselves.

What would happen if they did?

Some dunce typing "LOL!"?

Only a complete idiot would give a rat's ass about a dunce typing
"LOL!"

---
LOL, you certainly seem to be making quite a commotion over it!

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 230.


JF

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Robert Monsen wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this
sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

-- Jonathan Swift

This flushes 'em out like magic.


Ah, he is a plumber!

No. They fired him becasue he spent all day swimming in the septic
tank.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[Bret Cahill]

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this
sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

-- Jonathan Swift

   “A wise old owl sat on an oak; The more he saw the less he spoke; The
less he spoke the more he heard; Why aren't we like that wise old bird?”

Most are.

That's why I'm a Jeffersonian democrat.


Bret Cahill