h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

'Witch' is when it's a religion (no 'h'), and 'which' is when it's as in 'Which of you did that?' Just for future reference.

I think about it as helping the world, when I write Guide entries. It's adding to a vast compendium of knowledge that gets vaster every day. (Also it's the only place I've ever been 'published', so I'm thrilled by it.)

Thanks very much for your explanations, Math and HS. I'm learning more every day! (And I must say I find your belief systems a bit more appealing.)

I know lots of fellow teenagers who claim to be Wiccan, simply because they like the thrill of being 'strange' and 'different' and drawing pentagrams on everything. Whatever the merits of the religion to start with, it then completely loses all its purpose and intent and becomes utterly pointless when it's just practiced so a few high schoolers can feel 'cool'. It's no longer a religion, it's a fad, no different then wearing black, dying your hair or listening to certain styles of music. I'm not a particularly reverent person when it comes to religion, but I think if you're going to choose to practice a religion the very least you could do is believe in it and take it seriously.

<'Witch' is when it's a religion (no 'h'),

Not quite, Emmi. It's just the one 'h', not two. Get yerself over to AIM real soon and I'll forget that slight lapse.

toxx.

You threw alcohol on the flames?

You must really love your gods, or the sight of pretty flames.

Bouncy

>>You threw alcohol on the flames?

>>You must really love your gods, or the sight of pretty flames.<<

Both.

Loki likes good single malts. I don't, though I am learning...

An Cnoc is a fiery one, and one of his requests.

He'll make do with others in a pinch.

Jez

Hi Toxxin

The Awen, as poorly represented by my glyph, is the sacred spirit of inspiration and creativity. It flows through all things and can be felt by those engaged in creative pursuits when everything just seems to 'happen'.

As druids we tap into this living spirit and gain strength of purpose and hope from it.

As a symbol it should look like this (he said hoping it comes out like he types it):
...
/|\
The three dots represent the position of the sun at the two solstices (either side) and the equinoxes (the central dot). The three lines are, in their most basic interpretation, the rays of sunlight.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

Thanks, Math. That's most interesting. I had assumed that it was a stylised 'M' for your initial. Possibly, others will have done the same until now.

toxx

Hi Echo!
What's this 'Romans go home' you've put in your name? ('Romani ite domum')

What if I were to respond 'Roma, domus dulcis'? Er, the rules say I have to render that into English, so... 'Rome, Sweet Home'. I hope that's correct.

It's from Monty Python's 'Life of Brian', the movie. If you haven't seen it, which I take it you haven't, you should. It tells the tale of a Jew called Brian, living at the same time as Jesus, who is mistaken for the Messiah. He works for the People's Front of Judea, a sort of anti-Roman organisation, and gets the job of painting 'Romans go home' in Latin on some walls. He screws up the Latin grammar, though, and in a very funny scene a centaurion comes round and straightens it out.

I haven't got anything against Romans at all; on the contrary, as a Latin student, I'm quite fond of them. I just like the movie.

the answer is in the qustion and acknowledhment of the answer,
or so i thought but then i forgot ?is there matter in fact?

<>

You are seriously missing the point!

You're in Spain anyway, is the Spanish system funded by a licence fee?
So, what you seem to be saying is, that the Antiques Roadshow and the DIY cr*p is for those who don't like blasphemy? What an odd attitude! You seem to think that Christian=the kind of moron who likes reality TV, and can therefore watch any old rubbish...
<>
Are the block caps meant to signify what they seem to say?
Yet, it's okay for YOU to tell objectors that they can forget about TV and go do something ekse, so you can watch the kind of thing that seriously upsets a segment of the population who pay a licence fee along with all the atheists... who, you seem to be saying, should be able to dictate what's shown...
<>
Yeah, right. I reiterate, you live (as I do) elsewhere!

<>

I am sorry, but you sound both arrogant and patronising there, HS. (Also, with the phrase "fundie-speak"...

Mnay Christians, including the "fundies" I used to mix with, are very highly educated, even about "represtentational discourses".

<>

I think that's a serious misinterpretation, HS. For someone who is a believer in spirituality, your view of life seems as "of the earth, earthly' as any materialist. Physical gratification isn't all there is to life, and condemning Paul for saying just that, is rather strange. You don't take amiss the anti-bodily notions of the Gnostics, do you? (Many pagans don't.)

I still have not seen any indication anywhere, that the Beeb are biased towards Christianity! The very idea is laughable. Take Ian Wilson for instance. He was in the religious affairs division of the BBC, then he became a Christian (shock,horror and probe!) Then he had to quit. I don't know the precise detail of why, but the implication in what he wrote was that he was considered biased, compromised or the like.
It speaks volumes to me that a Christian man also quit over the Jerry Springer farce, just as more volumes are spoken over the fact that hootooers are calling him a weak, lying, hypocritical moron!

<>

What point?

Just because I pay a licence fee doesn't mean I should expect every programme on the BBC to be my liking. If all programming studiously avoided offending anyone, ever, it would be dull beyond bearing. I'd rather be offended occassionally.

<>
Which is perfectly reasonable, because we accept that there will be (are) occassions when the boot is on the other foot, and *we* have to go and do something else instead.
<<...so you can watch the kind of thing that seriously upsets a segment of the population who pay a licence fee along with all the atheists... who, you seem to be saying, should be able to dictate what's shown...>>

No one segment of the population (religious or atheist) should be able to dictate what's shown. Do we get these sort of protests about "Songs of Praise" or "The Heaven and Earth Show"?

<>

I know this is purely my personal experience, but I've never met a fundie (of any persuasion) for whom the possibility of different representational discourses was conceivable. It's almost part of the definition.

Noggin

<< expect every programme on the BBC to be my liking>>

Which is neither what I said, nor what I meant! I simply said that no programme should deliberately set out to offend, or be indifferent as to whether it did offend a sizeable chunk of the fee paying public.
<>
If you're honest, can you ever think of a time that's been the case? (I'm not talking about Big Brother and the like, I am talking about stuff that truly offends.
The stupid thing is that I have ended up having to defend the point of view of people I don't even really agree with all that much! However, I can see their point, whereas many hootooers seem reluctant to admit they even have one!
<>
I've never even heard of the second one, but as to the first, there's a shedload of moaning about it on h2g2.
<>
I am assuming, because people tend to mix with those they find most congenial, that you have known very few "fundies" in your life.
One of my lecturers in linguistics in 2003 was what you'd call a "fundie", from a prominent Christian family. She has a formidable intellect, and is familiar with all the kinds of knowledge that you think ignorance of is defining of "fundies". The second (of three) lecturers, who specifically taught on the discourse part of the paper, is a Catholic. Oddly enough, the third lecturer, and head of the department is a fundamentalist ... Muslim!
The tertiary institution where I was studying, is a secular, state-owned-and-run polytechnic which has been going in its present location for 30+ years.

Hey, there's a bit of intellectual cheating going on here, but it's fun analysing the conversation. That element aside, I take the view that we ought to tolerate all discourse except that which advocates intolerance. It might be fine to consider the other person's point-of-view (I take it that this is pretty much what's involved in "representational discourse"!), but not to the exclusion of all other positions.

In short, I can see no sound argument for censoship when it comes to adult communications. I for one might be as insulted if prevented from seeing something, as another might be when s/he is aware that I might see it!

toxx

Lian

>>Mnay Christians, including the "fundies" I used to mix with, are very highly educated, even about "represtentational discourses". <<

'nuff said, I think..

Jez

My problem,m Toxxin, was that I felt that the point of view of those who objected to the 'Jerry Springer Opera', was not being considered at all! In the thread dedicated to discussing it, there was simply a lot of what my sister would call "dissing", without considering that their view of what's acceptable should at least be heard!
If there really were death threats, that's another matter - such things are not what the Yanks would call "protected speech".
I am not wholly in favour of what the protestors were saying, but I do think there is a case to be made for censorship in some cases...
The same people *on here* who say that they are against cenbsorship would change their minds in a heartbeat if someone proposed a drama that contained what they considered to be racism or homophobia!
(On the thread I mentioned above, someone provided a link to what she said was an "anti-abortion" play, and stated that there was a case for censorship right there...

Reaasonable comment, Lian. You will note that I left myself a 'get-out' in the form of not tolerating intolerance. Objection to the mere existence of groups of people who have no choice whether they are members of that group, I would count as intolerance. I would count racial groups and sexual orientation classifications among the choiceless with regard to those particular aspects of themselves.

It is then clear that those who merely express some form of dislike for such groups probably require some education. However, at the other end of the scale is genocide and the like. Hence, it's a matter of drawing the line here.

Another aspect of the problem is that of simply 'counting heads'. If the vast majority of a population object to the transmission of something, is it right to deprive the few who want it - assuming it satisfies the previous criterion, of course? In a democracy, there's considerable pressure for the politicians to go along with the majority view.

Then there are minorities who feel very stongly, possibly including myself with my *objections* to censorship, OTBE. Should they be allowed to 'bully' the majority, or have to accept the consensus view or, indeed, my particular criteria?

It's a fascinating and important topic. Good to discuss it here on hootoo.

toxx