The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I don't understand
which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176423614927338.txt>
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:10g9bdl$3050d$1@dont-email.me...
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I don't understand
which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176423614927338.txt>
Possibly the one phrase
" You are talking at the pantomime level"bb
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I don't understand which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176423614927338.txt>
On 11/27/25 11:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10g9bdl$3050d$1@dont-email.me...
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I don't understand
which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176423614927338.txt>
Possibly the one phrase
" You are talking at the pantomime level"bb
But why is that abuse? Part of a jury trial is a performance. Not a
logical analytical process, but a play on the emotions of the jury and
the wider public. Acknowledging that, and pointing out that someone is discussing that part of the performance, is not abuse.
I don't think anyone seriously believes that a jury can determine the underlying truth of facts more reliably than experts, in general.
On 11/27/25 11:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10g9bdl$3050d$1@dont-email.me...
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I don't understand
which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176423614927338.txt>
Possibly the one phrase
" You are talking at the pantomime level"bb
But why is that abuse? Part of a jury trial is a performance. Not a logical analytical
process, but a play on the emotions of the jury and the wider public. Acknowledging
that, and pointing out that someone is discussing that part of the performance, is not
abuse.
I don't think anyone seriously believes that a jury can determine the underlying truth
of facts more reliably than experts, in general.
On 2025-11-27, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I don't
understand which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176423614927338.txt>
I am also unsure. Perhaps "You are talking at the pantomime level"?
I can't spot anything in the post that would merit rejection really,
although I must admit the putting of words into others' mouths, e.g.
"You would like to replace the views of the general population...",
"Perhaps you think you know what is good for them..." is a pet hate
of mine and I have rejected for that sort of thing in the past,
albeit in more egregious cases.
On 27 Nov 2025 at 11:46:16 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >wrote:
On 2025-11-27, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I don't >>> understand which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176423614927338.txt>
I am also unsure. Perhaps "You are talking at the pantomime level"?
I can't spot anything in the post that would merit rejection really,
although I must admit the putting of words into others' mouths, e.g.
"You would like to replace the views of the general population...",
"Perhaps you think you know what is good for them..." is a pet hate
of mine and I have rejected for that sort of thing in the past,
albeit in more egregious cases.
I think criticising The Todal's conclusions rather that impugning his presumed >motives would have been a better approach. I agree it is not very abusive as >these things go!
On 2025-11-27, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I don't
understand which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176423614927338.txt>
I am also unsure. Perhaps "You are talking at the pantomime level"?
I can't spot anything in the post that would merit rejection really,
although I must admit the putting of words into others' mouths, e.g.
"You would like to replace the views of the general population...",
"Perhaps you think you know what is good for them..." is a pet hate
of mine and I have rejected for that sort of thing in the past,
albeit in more egregious cases.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:10g9dfl$1buk4$1@dont-email.me...
On 11/27/25 11:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10g9bdl$3050d$1@dont-email.me...
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I don't understand
which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176423614927338.txt>
Possibly the one phrase
" You are talking at the pantomime level"bb
But why is that abuse? Part of a jury trial is a performance. Not a logical analytical
process, but a play on the emotions of the jury and the wider public. Acknowledging
that, and pointing out that someone is discussing that part of the performance, is not
abuse.
I don't think anyone seriously believes that a jury can determine the underlying truth
of facts more reliably than experts, in general.
Now that you've explained...
You were clearly referring to the jury "talking at the pantomime level"
And, simply suggesting, that that is how the OP's description of how a jury operates, could be described
Whereas......it could be read *at first glance* as your suggesting that it is the OP
themselves who is talking at pantomime level; in their discussion of the jury.,
On 2025-11-27, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 11/27/25 11:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10g9bdl$3050d$1@dont-email.me...
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I don't understand
which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176423614927338.txt>
Possibly the one phrase
" You are talking at the pantomime level"bb
But why is that abuse? Part of a jury trial is a performance. Not a
logical analytical process, but a play on the emotions of the jury and
the wider public. Acknowledging that, and pointing out that someone is
discussing that part of the performance, is not abuse.
I don't think it was at all clear that's what you meant by that phrase.
I don't think anyone seriously believes that a jury can determine the
underlying truth of facts more reliably than experts, in general.
Personally I suspect that judges are more likely than juries to be
biased in favour of their fellow establishment figures.
fOn 27 Nov 2025 12:09:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Nov 2025 at 11:46:16 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>wrote:
On 2025-11-27, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I don't >>>> understand which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176423614927338.txt>
I am also unsure. Perhaps "You are talking at the pantomime level"?
I can't spot anything in the post that would merit rejection really,
although I must admit the putting of words into others' mouths, e.g.
"You would like to replace the views of the general population...",
"Perhaps you think you know what is good for them..." is a pet hate
of mine and I have rejected for that sort of thing in the past,
albeit in more egregious cases.
I think criticising The Todal's conclusions rather that impugning his presumed
motives would have been a better approach. I agree it is not very abusive as >>these things go!
It doesn't take very much for a reply to Todal to be rejected.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:96hgikduoppoiqoqbg391397s2fmc53u3r@4ax.com...
fOn 27 Nov 2025 12:09:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Nov 2025 at 11:46:16 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>wrote:
On 2025-11-27, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I don't >>>>> understand which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176423614927338.txt>
I am also unsure. Perhaps "You are talking at the pantomime level"?
I can't spot anything in the post that would merit rejection really,
although I must admit the putting of words into others' mouths, e.g.
"You would like to replace the views of the general population...",
"Perhaps you think you know what is good for them..." is a pet hate
of mine and I have rejected for that sort of thing in the past,
albeit in more egregious cases.
I think criticising The Todal's conclusions rather that impugning his presumed
motives would have been a better approach. I agree it is not very abusive as >>>these things go!
It doesn't take very much for a reply to Todal to be rejected.
Not that you're bitter, or anything.
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 15:22:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:96hgikduoppoiqoqbg391397s2fmc53u3r@4ax.com...
fOn 27 Nov 2025 12:09:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Nov 2025 at 11:46:16 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>wrote:
On 2025-11-27, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I don't >>>>>> understand which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176423614927338.txt>
I am also unsure. Perhaps "You are talking at the pantomime level"?
I can't spot anything in the post that would merit rejection really, >>>>> although I must admit the putting of words into others' mouths, e.g. >>>>> "You would like to replace the views of the general population...",
"Perhaps you think you know what is good for them..." is a pet hate
of mine and I have rejected for that sort of thing in the past,
albeit in more egregious cases.
I think criticising The Todal's conclusions rather that impugning his presumed
motives would have been a better approach. I agree it is not very abusive as
these things go!
It doesn't take very much for a reply to Todal to be rejected.
Not that you're bitter, or anything.
I make no apology for resenting anyone abusing their power, however
limited that power might be.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:5vvgik9fipnh094gnt73jie1rt6i5luj36@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 15:22:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:96hgikduoppoiqoqbg391397s2fmc53u3r@4ax.com...
fOn 27 Nov 2025 12:09:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Nov 2025 at 11:46:16 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>>wrote:
On 2025-11-27, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I don't
understand which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176423614927338.txt>
I am also unsure. Perhaps "You are talking at the pantomime level"? >>>>>> I can't spot anything in the post that would merit rejection really, >>>>>> although I must admit the putting of words into others' mouths, e.g. >>>>>> "You would like to replace the views of the general population...", >>>>>> "Perhaps you think you know what is good for them..." is a pet hate >>>>>> of mine and I have rejected for that sort of thing in the past,
albeit in more egregious cases.
I think criticising The Todal's conclusions rather that impugning his presumed
motives would have been a better approach. I agree it is not very abusive as
these things go!
It doesn't take very much for a reply to Todal to be rejected.
Not that you're bitter, or anything.
I make no apology for resenting anyone abusing their power, however
limited that power might be.
So that would be,"eaten away with resentment" then.
Sorry, my mistake*.
On 11/27/25 11:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-11-27, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I don't >>> understand which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/
nr-176423614927338.txt>
I am also unsure. Perhaps "You are talking at the pantomime level"?
I can't spot anything in the post that would merit rejection really,
although I must admit the putting of words into others' mouths, e.g.
"You would like to replace the views of the general population...",
"Perhaps you think you know what is good for them..." is a pet hate
of mine and I have rejected for that sort of thing in the past,
albeit in more egregious cases.
Yes, I take your point, I could have sugar-coated it. It is irritating
when people mischaracterise our views. We should try to state what we
infer, as opposed to what others imply.
I hope I didn't mischaracterise Todal's views. AIUI, Todal wanted to
replace juries with judges because he thought judges made better
decisions. I apologise if I have it wrong. I did put a negative spin on those views, but that should be part of reasonable debate.
The option that experts know better than the common man, paternalism, is actually quite a defensible position. I personally believe that company management and government should be carried out by an informed
executive, rather than by referendums of a less informed electorate or shareholder base. We should choose our management, but then give them a chance to get on with it.
On 27/11/2025 12:39, Pancho wrote:
I hope I didn't mischaracterise Todal's views. AIUI, Todal wanted to
replace juries with judges because he thought judges made better
decisions. I apologise if I have it wrong. I did put a negative spin
on those views, but that should be part of reasonable debate.
Judges make quicker decisions, and give their reasons in detail.
Jurors
make decisions that at times seem random. When they acquitted OJ Simpson
it was no doubt because of resentment towards past violence committed by
the LAPD.
On 28/11/2025 12:39, The Todal wrote:
On 27/11/2025 12:39, Pancho wrote:
I hope I didn't mischaracterise Todal's views. AIUI, Todal wanted to
replace juries with judges because he thought judges made better
decisions. I apologise if I have it wrong. I did put a negative spin
on those views, but that should be part of reasonable debate.
Judges make quicker decisions, and give their reasons in detail.
Not in criminal cases they don't, not at present anyway.-a If what you're proposing is that they should give written reasons in any cases where
they replace a jury (as will be necessary for any subsequent appeal to
be fair), then they will be much slower.-a Or are you proposing that they should decide the case immediately then justify their decision later,
which is totally arse about face?
Jurors make decisions that at times seem random. When they acquitted
OJ Simpson it was no doubt because of resentment towards past violence
committed by the LAPD.
Maybe in part, but maybe also because of the infamous blood-stained
glove that was far too small for him ever to have worn.
His jury heard *all* of the evidence, not just some.
On 28/11/2025 14:37, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/11/2025 12:39, The Todal wrote:
On 27/11/2025 12:39, Pancho wrote:
I hope I didn't mischaracterise Todal's views. AIUI, Todal wanted to
replace juries with judges because he thought judges made better
decisions. I apologise if I have it wrong. I did put a negative spin
on those views, but that should be part of reasonable debate.
Judges make quicker decisions, and give their reasons in detail.
Not in criminal cases they don't, not at present anyway.-a If what
you're proposing is that they should give written reasons in any cases
where they replace a jury (as will be necessary for any subsequent
appeal to be fair), then they will be much slower.-a Or are you
proposing that they should decide the case immediately then justify
their decision later, which is totally arse about face?
If you were to attend a civil trial you would be far better informed
about how judges give their decisions.
Sometimes they give a decision with their reasoning (full judgment) to follow later.
Sometimes they take a few days before giving their
judgment. In a very complex case they might take weeks before giving
their judgment. There is nothing uniquely different about a criminal
case
- it is a question of stating the law, giving an assessment of the
various witnesses and saying which evidence the judge prefers, leading
to his/her conclusion.
So no, it would not be at all satisfactory if a judge were to say "I
find the defendant guilty" without giving any reasons.
In a magistrates court, the magistrates will confer and then they might
say "we find the case proven" (or not).
Jurors make decisions that at times seem random. When they acquitted
OJ Simpson it was no doubt because of resentment towards past
violence committed by the LAPD.
Maybe in part, but maybe also because of the infamous blood-stained
glove that was far too small for him ever to have worn.
His jury heard *all* of the evidence, not just some.
The infamous bloodstained glove did belong to OJ Simpson and, as an accomplished actor, dealing with a glove that had been kept in
conditions that probably made it dry out and shrink a little bit, he put
on a bravura performance of pretending that it didn't fit him.
One glove was at the crime scene covered with blood. Its pair was found
at OJ's house. No mystery there.
The mistake was Attorney Darden's rash request to ask him to try on the glove, obviously expecting that the jury would be impressed by that sight.
He was, of course, guilty. As later proved in a civil trial.
The infamous bloodstained glove did belong to OJ Simpson and, as an accomplished actor,
dealing with a glove that had been kept in conditions that probably made it dry out and
shrink a little bit,
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:motsfbFgiu0U1@mid.individual.net...
The infamous bloodstained glove did belong to OJ Simpson and, as an accomplished actor,
dealing with a glove that had been kept in conditions that probably made it dry out and
shrink a little bit,
Yeah right !
(a) That's an everyday occurrence you've encountered yourself is it ?
Shrinking gloves ?
And don't forget that glove didn't get any "special treatment" like being dunked in a barrel; of water for days on end.
It will have been picked up at the crime scene put in a plastic evidence
bag and stored in a no doubt centrally heated evidence store.
Just like your own gloves at home in fact.
And don't forget we're not talking Primark/Poundshop type gloves
here but really expensive gloves.
A few drops of blood and they shrink ?
On 27/11/2025 12:39, Pancho wrote:
On 11/27/25 11:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-11-27, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I
don't
understand which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/
nr-176423614927338.txt>
I am also unsure. Perhaps "You are talking at the pantomime level"?
I can't spot anything in the post that would merit rejection really,
although I must admit the putting of words into others' mouths, e.g.
"You would like to replace the views of the general population...",
"Perhaps you think you know what is good for them..." is a pet hate
of mine and I have rejected for that sort of thing in the past,
albeit in more egregious cases.
Yes, I take your point, I could have sugar-coated it. It is irritating
when people mischaracterise our views. We should try to state what we
infer, as opposed to what others imply.
I didn't want to be forced into rebutting your views using similar patronising, belittling, provocative phrases that you used, and lowering
the tone of the conversation.
I hope I didn't mischaracterise Todal's views. AIUI, Todal wanted to
replace juries with judges because he thought judges made better
decisions. I apologise if I have it wrong. I did put a negative spin
on those views, but that should be part of reasonable debate.
Judges make quicker decisions, and give their reasons in detail. Jurors
make decisions that at times seem random. When they acquitted OJ Simpson
it was no doubt because of resentment towards past violence committed by
the LAPD. In the UK nobody can ask jurors why they acquitted someone,
what particular elements of the prosecution case they found to be
defective.
On 11/28/25 12:39, The Todal wrote:
On 27/11/2025 12:39, Pancho wrote:
On 11/27/25 11:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-11-27, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
The moderator says: Feel free to resubmit without the abuse, but I
don't
understand which bit they consider abusive.
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/
nr-176423614927338.txt>
I am also unsure. Perhaps "You are talking at the pantomime level"?
I can't spot anything in the post that would merit rejection really,
although I must admit the putting of words into others' mouths, e.g.
"You would like to replace the views of the general population...",
"Perhaps you think you know what is good for them..." is a pet hate
of mine and I have rejected for that sort of thing in the past,
albeit in more egregious cases.
Yes, I take your point, I could have sugar-coated it. It is
irritating when people mischaracterise our views. We should try to
state what we infer, as opposed to what others imply.
I didn't want to be forced into rebutting your views using similar
patronising, belittling, provocative phrases that you used, and
lowering the tone of the conversation.
OK, so I still don't know what you consider to be abuse. Now, I don't
know what you consider patronising, belittling, or provocative, either.
You don't have to respond to people you consider rude by being rude yourself. Obviously, the suspicion is that you don't want to be
explicit, because it wouldn't make you look good. An additional
suspicion is that you prefer to talk abstractly about rebutting my
comments, as opposed to tackling the more difficult task of actually rebutting them.
I hope I didn't mischaracterise Todal's views. AIUI, Todal wanted to
replace juries with judges because he thought judges made better
decisions. I apologise if I have it wrong. I did put a negative spin
on those views, but that should be part of reasonable debate.
Judges make quicker decisions, and give their reasons in detail.
Jurors make decisions that at times seem random. When they acquitted
OJ Simpson it was no doubt because of resentment towards past violence
committed by the LAPD. In the UK nobody can ask jurors why they
acquitted someone, what particular elements of the prosecution case
they found to be defective.
So what? A jury is not expert, not reliable, there is no particular
reason we should value their precise reasoning. Guilty, not guilty, hung
is about as much precision as we should expect. If the jury thinking is
not obvious, there is no particular reason to believe that another jury wouldn't think entirely differently. It is not sensible to try to polish
a turd.
We do of course have access to the legal arguments and evidence
presented to the jury. A review of the trial verdict should be based
upon a review of that evidence.
On 28/11/2025 18:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:motsfbFgiu0U1@mid.individual.net...
The infamous bloodstained glove did belong to OJ Simpson and, as an
accomplished actor,
dealing with a glove that had been kept in conditions that probably
made it dry out and
shrink a little bit,
Yeah right !
(a) That's an everyday occurrence you've encountered yourself is it ?
Shrinking gloves ?
And don't forget that glove didn't get any "special treatment" like being
dunked in a barrel; of water for days on end.
It will have been picked up at the crime scene put in a plastic evidence
bag and stored in a no doubt centrally heated evidence store.
Just like your own gloves at home in fact.
And don't forget we're not talking Primark/Poundshop type gloves
here but really expensive gloves.
A few drops of blood and they shrink ?
There have been plenty of good documentaries about the OJ Simpson case.
If you really weren't paying attention at the time of the trial you
could usefully watch "The OJ Simpson Trial 30 Years On" on channel 5 catchup.
That disgusting wife-beating slob murdered his wife in a jealous rage
and the evidence against him was absolutely incontrovertible.
On 28/11/2025 18:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:motsfbFgiu0U1@mid.individual.net...
The infamous bloodstained glove did belong to OJ Simpson and, as an accomplished
actor,
dealing with a glove that had been kept in conditions that probably made it dry out
and
shrink a little bit,
Yeah right !
(a) That's an everyday occurrence you've encountered yourself is it ?
Shrinking gloves ?
And don't forget that glove didn't get any "special treatment" like being
dunked in a barrel; of water for days on end.
It will have been picked up at the crime scene put in a plastic evidence
bag and stored in a no doubt centrally heated evidence store.
Just like your own gloves at home in fact.
And don't forget we're not talking Primark/Poundshop type gloves
here but really expensive gloves.
A few drops of blood and they shrink ?
There have been plenty of good documentaries about the OJ Simpson case. If you really
weren't paying attention at the time of the trial you could usefully watch "The OJ
Simpson Trial 30 Years On" on channel 5 catchup.
That disgusting wife-beating slob murdered his wife in a jealous rage and the evidence
against him was absolutely incontrovertible.
If you believe he was not guilty or that he was framed, then you probably believe the
moon landings were faked and the Twin Towers was a false flag operation.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:mouqudFlh8lU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/11/2025 18:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:motsfbFgiu0U1@mid.individual.net...
The infamous bloodstained glove did belong to OJ Simpson and, as an accomplished
actor,
dealing with a glove that had been kept in conditions that probably made it dry out
and
shrink a little bit,
Yeah right !
(a) That's an everyday occurrence you've encountered yourself is it ?
Shrinking gloves ?
And don't forget that glove didn't get any "special treatment" like being >>> dunked in a barrel; of water for days on end.
It will have been picked up at the crime scene put in a plastic evidence >>> bag and stored in a no doubt centrally heated evidence store.
Just like your own gloves at home in fact.
And don't forget we're not talking Primark/Poundshop type gloves
here but really expensive gloves.
A few drops of blood and they shrink ?
There have been plenty of good documentaries about the OJ Simpson case. If you really
weren't paying attention at the time of the trial you could usefully watch "The OJ
Simpson Trial 30 Years On" on channel 5 catchup.
That disgusting wife-beating slob murdered his wife in a jealous rage and the evidence
against him was absolutely incontrovertible.
If you believe he was not guilty or that he was framed, then you probably believe the
moon landings were faked and the Twin Towers was a false flag operation.
But you simply cannot ignore the glove !
Unless you are suggesting that Simpson bought two pairs of gloves
one undersized and deliberately planted a blood stained undersize
glove at the scene, how do you explain that glove ?
So that before supposedly murdering his wife in a frenzied attack outside
of his own house, Simpson had deliberately brought along an undersized
glove ? Really ?
Which you, like everybody else saw Simpson trying on and failing conspicuously, before your very eyes, on the TV
How do you explain that ?
Because you can't !
On 28/11/2025 23:52, The Todal wrote:
On 28/11/2025 18:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:motsfbFgiu0U1@mid.individual.net...
The infamous bloodstained glove did belong to OJ Simpson and, as an
accomplished actor,
dealing with a glove that had been kept in conditions that probably
made it dry out and
shrink a little bit,
Yeah right !
(a) That's an everyday occurrence you've encountered yourself is it ?
Shrinking gloves ?
And don't forget that glove didn't get any "special treatment" like
being
dunked in a barrel; of water for days on end.
It will have been picked up at the crime scene put in a plastic evidence >>> bag and stored in a no doubt centrally heated evidence store.
Just like your own gloves at home in fact.
And don't forget we're not talking Primark/Poundshop type gloves
here but really expensive gloves.
A few drops of blood and they shrink ?
There have been plenty of good documentaries about the OJ Simpson
case. If you really weren't paying attention at the time of the trial
you could usefully watch "The OJ Simpson Trial 30 Years On" on channel
5 catchup.
Ah, trial by television.-a It's the only proper way, isn't it?
That disgusting wife-beating slob murdered his wife in a jealous rage
and the evidence against him was absolutely incontrovertible.
Not apparently to the jury which acquitted him.-a But you've obviously
made up your mind, so the jury, who actually heard all the evidence
(which you didn't) were clearly mistaken, and the case should have been decided by you alone.
Fair enough, but it's not my way.
On 29/11/2025 09:26, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/11/2025 23:52, The Todal wrote:
On 28/11/2025 18:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:motsfbFgiu0U1@mid.individual.net...
The infamous bloodstained glove did belong to OJ Simpson and, as an >>>>> accomplished actor,
dealing with a glove that had been kept in conditions that probably >>>>> made it dry out and
shrink a little bit,
Yeah right !
(a) That's an everyday occurrence you've encountered yourself is it ?
Shrinking gloves ?
And don't forget that glove didn't get any "special treatment" like
being
dunked in a barrel; of water for days on end.
It will have been picked up at the crime scene put in a plastic
evidence
bag and stored in a no doubt centrally heated evidence store.
Just like your own gloves at home in fact.
And don't forget we're not talking Primark/Poundshop type gloves
here but really expensive gloves.
A few drops of blood and they shrink ?
There have been plenty of good documentaries about the OJ Simpson
case. If you really weren't paying attention at the time of the trial
you could usefully watch "The OJ Simpson Trial 30 Years On" on
channel 5 catchup.
Ah, trial by television.-a It's the only proper way, isn't it?
That disgusting wife-beating slob murdered his wife in a jealous rage
and the evidence against him was absolutely incontrovertible.
Not apparently to the jury which acquitted him.-a But you've obviously
made up your mind, so the jury, who actually heard all the evidence
(which you didn't) were clearly mistaken, and the case should have
been decided by you alone.
Fair enough, but it's not my way.
Your way is to place blind trust in the integrity, honesty and wisdom of
a jury.
Fair enough, and very convenient if you never get to speak to any of the jurors.
Several jurors have reversed their previous opinions of Simpson's
innocence. In 2016, Carrie Bess admitted that while she still believes
that acquitting Simpson as payback for Rodney King was the correct
decision in the atmosphere of the 1990s, she regrets the not guilty
verdict following Simpson's arrest in Las Vegas, and labelled Simpson as "stupid" for getting himself into more trouble. Juror number nine,
Lionel Cryer, a former member of the Black Panther Party[69] who notably gave Simpson a black power raised fist after the verdict, said that in retrospect, he would render a guilty verdict. Juror Anise Aschenbach,
who initially voted guilty before changing her vote, stated she regrets
the decision and believes Simpson is guilty because he is not looking
for the "real killer" like he promised he would.
On 29/11/2025 10:43, The Todal wrote:
On 29/11/2025 09:26, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/11/2025 23:52, The Todal wrote:
On 28/11/2025 18:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:motsfbFgiu0U1@mid.individual.net...
The infamous bloodstained glove did belong to OJ Simpson and, as
an accomplished actor,
dealing with a glove that had been kept in conditions that
probably made it dry out and
shrink a little bit,
Yeah right !
(a) That's an everyday occurrence you've encountered yourself is it ? >>>>>
Shrinking gloves ?
And don't forget that glove didn't get any "special treatment" like >>>>> being
dunked in a barrel; of water for days on end.
It will have been picked up at the crime scene put in a plastic
evidence
bag and stored in a no doubt centrally heated evidence store.
Just like your own gloves at home in fact.
And don't forget we're not talking Primark/Poundshop type gloves
here but really expensive gloves.
A few drops of blood and they shrink ?
There have been plenty of good documentaries about the OJ Simpson
case. If you really weren't paying attention at the time of the
trial you could usefully watch "The OJ Simpson Trial 30 Years On" on
channel 5 catchup.
Ah, trial by television.-a It's the only proper way, isn't it?
That disgusting wife-beating slob murdered his wife in a jealous
rage and the evidence against him was absolutely incontrovertible.
Not apparently to the jury which acquitted him.-a But you've obviously
made up your mind, so the jury, who actually heard all the evidence
(which you didn't) were clearly mistaken, and the case should have
been decided by you alone.
Fair enough, but it's not my way.
Your way is to place blind trust in the integrity, honesty and wisdom
of a jury.
Fair enough, and very convenient if you never get to speak to any of
the jurors.
Several jurors have reversed their previous opinions of Simpson's
innocence. In 2016, Carrie Bess admitted that while she still believes
that acquitting Simpson as payback for Rodney King was the correct
decision in the atmosphere of the 1990s, she regrets the not guilty
verdict following Simpson's arrest in Las Vegas, and labelled Simpson
as "stupid" for getting himself into more trouble. Juror number nine,
Lionel Cryer, a former member of the Black Panther Party[69] who
notably gave Simpson a black power raised fist after the verdict, said
that in retrospect, he would render a guilty verdict. Juror Anise
Aschenbach, who initially voted guilty before changing her vote,
stated she regrets the decision and believes Simpson is guilty because
he is not looking for the "real killer" like he promised he would.
All of this, presumably, as a result of subsequent trial by television.
He had a fair trial at the time without the jurors being compromised by information not revealed in court, public opinion, rabid speculation and subsequent biassed reporting.
have a fair trial before any jury because everyone (like you) has made
up his mind and closed it.
So, it is silly to rely on the views of any who would not now be able to
be impartial.-a Those who served before, at his trial, were best placed
to make an impartial decision, and they did.-a They are not now.
On 29/11/2025 10:27, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mouqudFlh8lU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/11/2025 18:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:motsfbFgiu0U1@mid.individual.net...
The infamous bloodstained glove did belong to OJ Simpson and, as an accomplished
actor,
dealing with a glove that had been kept in conditions that probably made it dry out
and
shrink a little bit,
Yeah right !
(a) That's an everyday occurrence you've encountered yourself is it ?
Shrinking gloves ?
And don't forget that glove didn't get any "special treatment" like being >>>> dunked in a barrel; of water for days on end.
It will have been picked up at the crime scene put in a plastic evidence >>>> bag and stored in a no doubt centrally heated evidence store.
Just like your own gloves at home in fact.
And don't forget we're not talking Primark/Poundshop type gloves
here but really expensive gloves.
A few drops of blood and they shrink ?
There have been plenty of good documentaries about the OJ Simpson case. If you really
weren't paying attention at the time of the trial you could usefully watch "The OJ
Simpson Trial 30 Years On" on channel 5 catchup.
That disgusting wife-beating slob murdered his wife in a jealous rage and the
evidence
against him was absolutely incontrovertible.
If you believe he was not guilty or that he was framed, then you probably believe the
moon landings were faked and the Twin Towers was a false flag operation.
But you simply cannot ignore the glove !
Unless you are suggesting that Simpson bought two pairs of gloves
one undersized and deliberately planted a blood stained undersize
glove at the scene, how do you explain that glove ?
So that before supposedly murdering his wife in a frenzied attack outside
of his own house, Simpson had deliberately brought along an undersized
glove ? Really ?
Which you, like everybody else saw Simpson trying on and failing
conspicuously, before your very eyes, on the TV
How do you explain that ?
It was acting.
Any actor can make it look as if a glove doesn't fit, when the glove was always a
fashionable tight fitting glove, not a child's mitten.
On 29/11/2025 12:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 29/11/2025 10:43, The Todal wrote:
Several jurors have reversed their previous opinions of Simpson's
innocence. In 2016, Carrie Bess admitted that while she still
believes that acquitting Simpson as payback for Rodney King was the
correct decision in the atmosphere of the 1990s, she regrets the not
guilty verdict following Simpson's arrest in Las Vegas, and labelled
Simpson as "stupid" for getting himself into more trouble. Juror
number nine, Lionel Cryer, a former member of the Black Panther
Party[69] who notably gave Simpson a black power raised fist after
the verdict, said that in retrospect, he would render a guilty
verdict. Juror Anise Aschenbach, who initially voted guilty before
changing her vote, stated she regrets the decision and believes
Simpson is guilty because he is not looking for the "real killer"
like he promised he would.
All of this, presumably, as a result of subsequent trial by television.
He had a fair trial at the time without the jurors being compromised
by information not revealed in court, public opinion, rabid
speculation and subsequent biassed reporting.
You're sticking to your theory,thereby proving that you personally would
be a rubbish juror.
All the facts were available at the time of the trial, so either you
weren't watching the trial or you didn't really follow what was said by
the lawyers and the experts.
It would be impossible now for him to
have a fair trial before any jury because everyone (like you) has made
up his mind and closed it.
There's also the fact that the murderer and wife beater has in fact died.
After writing a book called "If I Did It" in which he explains how he
did murder his wife, knowing that he couldn't be put on trial again.
But I expect you still believe that he was innocent. Or that even if he
was guilty, the jury's verdict trumps reality.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:mp00nvFrg7uU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/11/2025 10:27, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mouqudFlh8lU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/11/2025 18:34, billy bookcase wrote:But you simply cannot ignore the glove !
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:motsfbFgiu0U1@mid.individual.net...
The infamous bloodstained glove did belong to OJ Simpson and, as an accomplished
actor,
dealing with a glove that had been kept in conditions that probably made it dry out
and
shrink a little bit,
Yeah right !
(a) That's an everyday occurrence you've encountered yourself is it ? >>>>>
Shrinking gloves ?
And don't forget that glove didn't get any "special treatment" like being >>>>> dunked in a barrel; of water for days on end.
It will have been picked up at the crime scene put in a plastic evidence >>>>> bag and stored in a no doubt centrally heated evidence store.
Just like your own gloves at home in fact.
And don't forget we're not talking Primark/Poundshop type gloves
here but really expensive gloves.
A few drops of blood and they shrink ?
There have been plenty of good documentaries about the OJ Simpson case. If you really
weren't paying attention at the time of the trial you could usefully watch "The OJ
Simpson Trial 30 Years On" on channel 5 catchup.
That disgusting wife-beating slob murdered his wife in a jealous rage and the
evidence
against him was absolutely incontrovertible.
If you believe he was not guilty or that he was framed, then you probably believe the
moon landings were faked and the Twin Towers was a false flag operation. >>>
Unless you are suggesting that Simpson bought two pairs of gloves
one undersized and deliberately planted a blood stained undersize
glove at the scene, how do you explain that glove ?
So that before supposedly murdering his wife in a frenzied attack outside >>> of his own house, Simpson had deliberately brought along an undersized
glove ? Really ?
Which you, like everybody else saw Simpson trying on and failing
conspicuously, before your very eyes, on the TV
How do you explain that ?
It was acting.
Any actor can make it look as if a glove doesn't fit, when the glove was always a
fashionable tight fitting glove, not a child's mitten.
The photos prove otherwise and AFAIAA nobody else has claimed he
was acting. All have claimed the gloves had shrunk. Which is exactly
what gloves being stored as evidence would not be allowed to
do; even if that were a normal occurrence. Which it isn't.
This is what then Assistant Prosecutor Christopher Darden had to say
quote:
"People ask me now would I do it again. No. Of course not. I should have taken into account shrinkage" of the gloves. "But, while I wouldn't
do it again, I know those are [Simpson's] gloves."
:unquote
Now please note
*it was the Prosecution who asked Simpson to try on the gloves*
Now why would they want to do that ?
The jury had no reason to believe they weren't Simpson's gloves.
Simpson himself had no reason to believe the gloves wouldn't fit so
why would he challenge the Prosecution over the matter ?
Here is Darden's answer
quote::
Darden wrote in a memoir, titled In Contempt, that his decision was preemptive, saying he believed Cochran would likely to call for such
a demonstration if the prosecution did not.
:unquote
https://1995blog.com/2020/06/12/recalling-botched-glove-demonstration-at-1995-o-j-simpson-trial-of-the-century/
Which simply doesn't make any sense at all.
If he didn't test the gloves then the Jury would assume they were
Simpsons anyway. So no harm done
And why would Cochran want to test the gloves if he thought that they
would fit ?
The only real way to make any sense of this IMO is to assume someone
was paid to switch the gloves for another pair, at some point. But without Dardens knowledge. But who was nevertheless somehow persuaded to perform
the test; as it was thought it would look less suspicious and have
more impact if the failed test was conducted by the prosecution.
On 29/11/2025 21:55, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mp00nvFrg7uU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/11/2025 10:27, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mouqudFlh8lU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/11/2025 18:34, billy bookcase wrote:But you simply cannot ignore the glove !
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:motsfbFgiu0U1@mid.individual.net...
The infamous bloodstained glove did belong to OJ Simpson and, as an >>>>>>> accomplished
actor,
dealing with a glove that had been kept in conditions that probably made
it dry out
and
shrink a little bit,
Yeah right !
(a) That's an everyday occurrence you've encountered yourself is it ? >>>>>>
Shrinking gloves ?
And don't forget that glove didn't get any "special treatment" like being
dunked in a barrel; of water for days on end.
It will have been picked up at the crime scene put in a plastic evidence >>>>>> bag and stored in a no doubt centrally heated evidence store.
Just like your own gloves at home in fact.
And don't forget we're not talking Primark/Poundshop type gloves
here but really expensive gloves.
A few drops of blood and they shrink ?
There have been plenty of good documentaries about the OJ Simpson case. If
you really
weren't paying attention at the time of the trial you could usefully watch
"The OJ
Simpson Trial 30 Years On" on channel 5 catchup.
That disgusting wife-beating slob murdered his wife in a jealous rage and the
evidence
against him was absolutely incontrovertible.
If you believe he was not guilty or that he was framed, then you probably
believe the
moon landings were faked and the Twin Towers was a false flag operation. >>>>
Unless you are suggesting that Simpson bought two pairs of gloves
one undersized and deliberately planted a blood stained undersize
glove at the scene, how do you explain that glove ?
So that before supposedly murdering his wife in a frenzied attack outside >>>> of his own house, Simpson-a had deliberately brought along an undersized >>>> glove ?-a Really ?
Which you, like everybody else saw Simpson trying on and failing
conspicuously, before your very eyes, on the TV
How do you explain that ?
It was acting.
Any actor can make it look as if a glove doesn't fit, when the glove was >>> always a
fashionable tight fitting glove, not a child's mitten.
The photos prove otherwise and AFAIAA nobody else has claimed he
was acting. All have claimed the gloves had shrunk. Which is exactly
what gloves being stored as evidence would not be allowed to
do; even if that were a normal occurrence. Which it isn't.
This is what then Assistant Prosecutor Christopher Darden had to say
quote:
"People ask me now would I do it again. No. Of course not. I should have
taken into account shrinkage" of the gloves. "But, while I wouldn't
do it again, I know those are [Simpson's] gloves."
:unquote
Now please note
*it was the Prosecution who asked Simpson to try on the gloves*
Now why would they want to do that ?
The jury had no reason to believe they weren't Simpson's gloves.
Simpson himself had no reason to believe the gloves wouldn't fit so
why would he challenge the Prosecution over the matter ?
Here is Darden's answer
quote::
Darden wrote in a memoir, titled In Contempt, that his decision was
preemptive, saying he believed Cochran would likely to call for such
a demonstration if the prosecution did not.
:unquote
https://1995blog.com/2020/06/12/recalling-botched-glove-demonstration-at-1995-
o-j-simpson-trial-of-the-century/
Which simply doesn't make any sense at all.
If he didn't test the gloves then the Jury would assume they were
Simpsons anyway. So no harm done
And why would Cochran want to test the gloves if he thought that they
would fit ?
The only real way to make any sense of this IMO is to assume-a someone
was paid to switch the gloves for another pair, at some point. But without >> Dardens knowledge. But who was nevertheless somehow persuaded to perform
the test;-a as it was thought it would look less suspicious and have
more impact if the failed test was conducted by the prosecution.
The only way to make sense of it is to reject implausible theories and opt for
the more plausible ones.
quotes
Shrinkage from blood and weather:-a-a-a Leather can shrink after being exposed to
liquid like blood and then dried, especially after being exposed to freezing and
thawing cycles.
Latex gloves worn underneath:-a Simpson was reportedly wearing thin latex gloves
under the leather evidence gloves, which added bulk and friction.
Natural glove shrinkage: Leather gloves stretch when worn, and will shrink back
slightly when not worn for a period of time.
unquote
But I prefer the most obvious explanation - Simpson was an actor and it is easy
to make it look as if a glove does not fit. Any amateur actor can do the same.
The sensible option would of course be to test the inside of the glove for his
DNA and leave it at that. If the glove was to be tried on, it should have been
placed on his hand by someone else, not by him.
On 30/11/2025 09:58, The Todal wrote:
On 29/11/2025 21:55, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mp00nvFrg7uU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/11/2025 10:27, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mouqudFlh8lU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/11/2025 18:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:motsfbFgiu0U1@mid.individual.net...
The infamous bloodstained glove did belong to OJ Simpson and, as >>>>>>>> an accomplished
actor,
dealing with a glove that had been kept in conditions that
probably made it dry out
and
shrink a little bit,
Yeah right !
(a) That's an everyday occurrence you've encountered yourself is >>>>>>> it ?
Shrinking gloves ?
And don't forget that glove didn't get any "special treatment"
like being
dunked in a barrel; of water for days on end.
It will have been picked up at the crime scene put in a plastic >>>>>>> evidence
bag and stored in a no doubt centrally heated evidence store.
Just like your own gloves at home in fact.
And don't forget we're not talking Primark/Poundshop type gloves >>>>>>> here but really expensive gloves.
A few drops of blood and they shrink ?
There have been plenty of good documentaries about the OJ Simpson >>>>>> case. If you really
weren't paying attention at the time of the trial you could
usefully watch "The OJ
Simpson Trial 30 Years On" on channel 5 catchup.
That disgusting wife-beating slob murdered his wife in a jealous
rage and the
evidence
against him was absolutely incontrovertible.
If you believe he was not guilty or that he was framed, then you
probably believe the
moon landings were faked and the Twin Towers was a false flag
operation.
But you simply cannot ignore the glove !
Unless you are suggesting that Simpson bought two pairs of gloves
one undersized and deliberately planted a blood stained undersize
glove at the scene, how do you explain that glove ?
So that before supposedly murdering his wife in a frenzied attack
outside
of his own house, Simpson-a had deliberately brought along an
undersized
glove ?-a Really ?
Which you, like everybody else saw Simpson trying on and failing
conspicuously, before your very eyes, on the TV
How do you explain that ?
It was acting.
Any actor can make it look as if a glove doesn't fit, when the glove
was always a
fashionable tight fitting glove, not a child's mitten.
The photos prove otherwise and AFAIAA nobody else has claimed he
was acting. All have claimed the gloves had shrunk. Which is exactly
what gloves being stored as evidence would not be allowed to
do; even if that were a normal occurrence. Which it isn't.
This is what then Assistant Prosecutor Christopher Darden had to say
quote:
"People ask me now would I do it again. No. Of course not. I should have >>> taken into account shrinkage" of the gloves. "But, while I wouldn't
do it again, I know those are [Simpson's] gloves."
:unquote
Now please note
*it was the Prosecution who asked Simpson to try on the gloves*
Now why would they want to do that ?
The jury had no reason to believe they weren't Simpson's gloves.
Simpson himself had no reason to believe the gloves wouldn't fit so
why would he challenge the Prosecution over the matter ?
Here is Darden's answer
quote::
Darden wrote in a memoir, titled In Contempt, that his decision was
preemptive, saying he believed Cochran would likely to call for such
a demonstration if the prosecution did not.
:unquote
https://1995blog.com/2020/06/12/recalling-botched-glove-
demonstration-at-1995- o-j-simpson-trial-of-the-century/
Which simply doesn't make any sense at all.
If he didn't test the gloves then the Jury would assume they were
Simpsons anyway. So no harm done
And why would Cochran want to test the gloves if he thought that they
would fit ?
The only real way to make any sense of this IMO is to assume-a someone
was paid to switch the gloves for another pair, at some point. But
without
Dardens knowledge. But who was nevertheless somehow persuaded to perform >>> the test;-a as it was thought it would look less suspicious and have
more impact if the failed test was conducted by the prosecution.
The only way to make sense of it is to reject implausible theories and
opt for the more plausible ones.
quotes
Shrinkage from blood and weather:-a-a-a Leather can shrink after being
exposed to liquid like blood and then dried, especially after being
exposed to freezing and thawing cycles.
Latex gloves worn underneath:-a Simpson was reportedly wearing thin
latex gloves under the leather evidence gloves, which added bulk and
friction.
Natural glove shrinkage: Leather gloves stretch when worn, and will
shrink back slightly when not worn for a period of time.
unquote
But I prefer the most obvious explanation - Simpson was an actor and
it is easy to make it look as if a glove does not fit. Any amateur
actor can do the same.
The sensible option would of course be to test the inside of the glove
for his DNA and leave it at that. If the glove was to be tried on, it
should have been placed on his hand by someone else, not by him.
Given how other DNA evidence was shown to be contaminated, that wouldn't have proved a thing.
As Norman said, the trial didn't have to prove him innocent, it had to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he was guilty.-a And the defence lawyers cast enough doubt about the police, and the forensics, and the
care taken over the physical evidence.
I did watch a lot of that trial, not all of it so I wouldn't make a judgement myself.
On 30/11/2025 14:41, kat wrote:
On 30/11/2025 09:58, The Todal wrote:
On 29/11/2025 21:55, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mp00nvFrg7uU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/11/2025 10:27, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mouqudFlh8lU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/11/2025 18:34, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:motsfbFgiu0U1@mid.individual.net...
The infamous bloodstained glove did belong to OJ Simpson and, as an >>>>>>>>> accomplished
actor,
dealing with a glove that had been kept in conditions that probably >>>>>>>>> made it dry out
and
shrink a little bit,
Yeah right !
(a) That's an everyday occurrence you've encountered yourself is it ? >>>>>>>>
Shrinking gloves ?
And don't forget that glove didn't get any "special treatment" like being
dunked in a barrel; of water for days on end.
It will have been picked up at the crime scene put in a plastic evidence
bag and stored in a no doubt centrally heated evidence store.
Just like your own gloves at home in fact.
And don't forget we're not talking Primark/Poundshop type gloves >>>>>>>> here but really expensive gloves.
A few drops of blood and they shrink ?
There have been plenty of good documentaries about the OJ Simpson case.
If you really
weren't paying attention at the time of the trial you could usefully >>>>>>> watch "The OJ
Simpson Trial 30 Years On" on channel 5 catchup.
That disgusting wife-beating slob murdered his wife in a jealous rage and
the
evidence
against him was absolutely incontrovertible.
If you believe he was not guilty or that he was framed, then you probably
believe the
moon landings were faked and the Twin Towers was a false flag operation.
But you simply cannot ignore the glove !
Unless you are suggesting that Simpson bought two pairs of gloves
one undersized and deliberately planted a blood stained undersize
glove at the scene, how do you explain that glove ?
So that before supposedly murdering his wife in a frenzied attack outside
of his own house, Simpson-a had deliberately brought along an undersized >>>>>> glove ?-a Really ?
Which you, like everybody else saw Simpson trying on and failing
conspicuously, before your very eyes, on the TV
How do you explain that ?
It was acting.
Any actor can make it look as if a glove doesn't fit, when the glove was >>>>> always a
fashionable tight fitting glove, not a child's mitten.
The photos prove otherwise and AFAIAA nobody else has claimed he
was acting. All have claimed the gloves had shrunk. Which is exactly
what gloves being stored as evidence would not be allowed to
do; even if that were a normal occurrence. Which it isn't.
This is what then Assistant Prosecutor Christopher Darden had to say
quote:
"People ask me now would I do it again. No. Of course not. I should have >>>> taken into account shrinkage" of the gloves. "But, while I wouldn't
do it again, I know those are [Simpson's] gloves."
:unquote
Now please note
*it was the Prosecution who asked Simpson to try on the gloves*
Now why would they want to do that ?
The jury had no reason to believe they weren't Simpson's gloves.
Simpson himself had no reason to believe the gloves wouldn't fit so
why would he challenge the Prosecution over the matter ?
Here is Darden's answer
quote::
Darden wrote in a memoir, titled In Contempt, that his decision was
preemptive, saying he believed Cochran would likely to call for such
a demonstration if the prosecution did not.
:unquote
https://1995blog.com/2020/06/12/recalling-botched-glove- demonstration- >>>> at-1995- o-j-simpson-trial-of-the-century/
Which simply doesn't make any sense at all.
If he didn't test the gloves then the Jury would assume they were
Simpsons anyway. So no harm done
And why would Cochran want to test the gloves if he thought that they
would fit ?
The only real way to make any sense of this IMO is to assume-a someone >>>> was paid to switch the gloves for another pair, at some point. But without >>>> Dardens knowledge. But who was nevertheless somehow persuaded to perform >>>> the test;-a as it was thought it would look less suspicious and have
more impact if the failed test was conducted by the prosecution.
The only way to make sense of it is to reject implausible theories and opt >>> for the more plausible ones.
quotes
Shrinkage from blood and weather:-a-a-a Leather can shrink after being exposed
to liquid like blood and then dried, especially after being exposed to
freezing and thawing cycles.
Latex gloves worn underneath:-a Simpson was reportedly wearing thin latex >>> gloves under the leather evidence gloves, which added bulk and friction. >>> Natural glove shrinkage: Leather gloves stretch when worn, and will shrink >>> back slightly when not worn for a period of time.
unquote
But I prefer the most obvious explanation - Simpson was an actor and it is >>> easy to make it look as if a glove does not fit. Any amateur actor can do the
same.
The sensible option would of course be to test the inside of the glove for >>> his DNA and leave it at that. If the glove was to be tried on, it should have
been placed on his hand by someone else, not by him.
Given how other DNA evidence was shown to be contaminated, that wouldn't have
proved a thing.
It wasn't *shown* to be contaminated at all.
Simpson's DNA was found in blood drops at the crime scene, on a trail leading
away from the victims, and in blood found at his home and in his Bronco.
DNA evidence was then in its infancy and Barry Scheck was put forward by the defence as the nation's leading expert in how DNA can be contaminated by improper police handling. All he had to do was to explain in scientific terms
how theoretically DNA can be mishandled and misleading, and therefore it could
not be considered an infallible way of proving guilt. That was enough to help
the jury towards a finding of not guilty.
As Norman said, the trial didn't have to prove him innocent, it had to prove,
beyond reasonable doubt, that he was guilty.-a And the defence lawyers cast >> enough doubt about the police, and the forensics, and the care taken over the
physical evidence.
I did watch a lot of that trial, not all of it so I wouldn't make a judgement
myself.
Well, you just made an inaccurate judgment about the DNA but never mind.
I am sure there is a good valid argument for having juries determine guilt or
innocence. However, there is also little doubt that if the prosecution needs to
persuade all 12 jurors of guilt (or 10 in the UK) it only takes one or two dunderheads, fuckwits or idiots in a hurry to ensure that a guilty man will go
free.
And yes, of course if he is acquitted he ceases to be guilty so he can't be described as a guilty man. Thus, no guilty man is ever acquitted.
I am sure there is a good valid argument for having juries determine
guilt or innocence. However, there is also little doubt that if the prosecution needs to persuade all 12 jurors of guilt (or 10 in the UK)
it only takes one or two dunderheads, fuckwits or idiots in a hurry to ensure that a guilty man will go free.
The only way to make sense of it is to reject implausible theories and opt for the more
plausible ones.
I am sure there is a good valid argument for having juries determine guilt or
innocence. However, there is also little doubt that if the prosecution needs to
persuade all 12 jurors of guilt (or 10 in the UK) it only takes one or two dunderheads,
fuckwits or idiots in a hurry to ensure that a guilty man will go free.
On 01/12/2025 11:12, The Todal wrote:
I am sure there is a good valid argument for having juries determine
guilt or innocence. However, there is also little doubt that if the
prosecution needs to persuade all 12 jurors of guilt (or 10 in the UK)
it only takes one or two dunderheads, fuckwits or idiots in a hurry to
ensure that a guilty man will go free.
This is a quite shocking misunderstanding of how judicial processes involving juries work.
Of course it doesn't.
If a unanimous verdict is required, it is required in order to acquit as well as to convict.-a Unless all 12 are agreed one way *or* the other,
the jury is hung, no verdict is returned, and it may result in a re-trial.
If, after due consideration as determined by the judge, a UK jury is
unable to reach a unanimous verdict, it will be instructed to reach a verdict one way or the other on which at least 10 of them are agreed.
Then of course, 'one or two dunderheads, fuckwits or idiots in a hurry' won't deprive the rest of the jury of coming to at least a 10-2 verdict opposing them.-a It would take at least three even to result in a hung jury.
On 01/12/2025 12:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 01/12/2025 11:12, The Todal wrote:
I am sure there is a good valid argument for having juries determine
guilt or innocence. However, there is also little doubt that if the
prosecution needs to persuade all 12 jurors of guilt (or 10 in the
UK) it only takes one or two dunderheads, fuckwits or idiots in a
hurry to ensure that a guilty man will go free.
This is a quite shocking misunderstanding of how judicial processes
involving juries work.
Of course it doesn't.
If a unanimous verdict is required, it is required in order to acquit
as well as to convict.-a Unless all 12 are agreed one way *or* the
other, the jury is hung, no verdict is returned, and it may result in
a re-trial.
If, after due consideration as determined by the judge, a UK jury is
unable to reach a unanimous verdict, it will be instructed to reach a
verdict one way or the other on which at least 10 of them are agreed.
Then of course, 'one or two dunderheads, fuckwits or idiots in a
hurry' won't deprive the rest of the jury of coming to at least a 10-2
verdict opposing them.-a It would take at least three even to result in
a hung jury.
It is of course a truism that juries can very easily convict an innocent person as an alternative to letting a guilty person go free.
The jurors who are dunderheads, fuckwits or severely neurodivergent will sometimes slow down the deliberations by misunderstanding or
misinterpreting key pieces of evidence,
and any jurors who are bored or
keen to get away will simply go along with the majority because they no longer trust their own instincts.
If there is a mistrial, it can mean a lot of time and expense to try
that defendant again, so that the defendant and the complainant have
their lived on hold for another year, maybe longer.
Still, all's well, the system is a time-honoured one and by keeping the deliberations in the jury room strictly confidential nobody need ever
know that injustice has been done.
And I'm sure we have people on usenet
who will assure us that they themselves were on a jury and it was
brilliant and every argument was carefully weighed and considered. Easy
for them to say, when they aren't actually lawyers.
On 04/12/2025 11:10, The Todal wrote:
On 01/12/2025 12:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 01/12/2025 11:12, The Todal wrote:
I am sure there is a good valid argument for having juries determine
guilt or innocence. However, there is also little doubt that if the
prosecution needs to persuade all 12 jurors of guilt (or 10 in the
UK) it only takes one or two dunderheads, fuckwits or idiots in a
hurry to ensure that a guilty man will go free.
This is a quite shocking misunderstanding of how judicial processes
involving juries work.
Of course it doesn't.
If a unanimous verdict is required, it is required in order to acquit
as well as to convict.-a Unless all 12 are agreed one way *or* the
other, the jury is hung, no verdict is returned, and it may result in
a re-trial.
If, after due consideration as determined by the judge, a UK jury is
unable to reach a unanimous verdict, it will be instructed to reach a
verdict one way or the other on which at least 10 of them are agreed.
Then of course, 'one or two dunderheads, fuckwits or idiots in a
hurry' won't deprive the rest of the jury of coming to at least a
10-2 verdict opposing them.-a It would take at least three even to
result in a hung jury.
It is of course a truism that juries can very easily convict an
innocent person as an alternative to letting a guilty person go free.
No it isn't.
start to protect the innocent.-a First, the police must have reasonable, real suspicion of a criminal offence.
the CPS must be convinced that there is sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction at trial, meaning more than
a 50% chance.
must be 'sure' of the defendant's guilt.-a Fourth, all twelve of the
jurors need to agree on guilt or, in a small minority of cases, at least
10 of them.
Far more of the actually guilty get away with what they've done because
of all those stages than innocents who get convicted.
The jurors who are dunderheads, fuckwits or severely neurodivergent
will sometimes slow down the deliberations by misunderstanding or
misinterpreting key pieces of evidence,
That's why juries are locked in a closed room until they reach a verdict
on which they are all agreed.-a They discuss the evidence, they argue
about it, they influence others, they persuade others.-a It's what it's
all about.-a And one or two difficult ones who hold to their view
regardless when all the others disagree with them will be legitimately sidelined.-a It doesn't have to be a rapid process; it's supposed to be a sound one.
and any jurors who are bored or keen to get away will simply go along
with the majority because they no longer trust their own instincts.
If they're in a minority of one or two, they'll be outgunned anyway.
But it's a bit dismissive and wrong to imply that any significant number
of jurors don't take the matter and their responsibilities seriously.
If there is a mistrial, it can mean a lot of time and expense to try
that defendant again, so that the defendant and the complainant have
their lived on hold for another year, maybe longer.
A hung jury is not a mistrial but an occupational hazard.-a And it occurs
in only about 0.7% of jury trials anyway, ie a tiny number.
Still, all's well, the system is a time-honoured one and by keeping
the deliberations in the jury room strictly confidential nobody need
ever know that injustice has been done.
The wrongly convicted will let us know.-a After all, they have an
interest in doing so.
And I'm sure we have people on usenet who will assure us that they
themselves were on a jury and it was brilliant and every argument was
carefully weighed and considered. Easy for them to say, when they
aren't actually lawyers.
Who better than ordinary people?-a Even you have shown above how very
little you know about the place and function of a jury in our judicial system despite your professed legal knowledge.
On 04/12/2025 13:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/12/2025 11:10, The Todal wrote:
On 01/12/2025 12:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 01/12/2025 11:12, The Todal wrote:
I am sure there is a good valid argument for having juries
determine guilt or innocence. However, there is also little doubt
that if the prosecution needs to persuade all 12 jurors of guilt
(or 10 in the UK) it only takes one or two dunderheads, fuckwits or >>>>> idiots in a hurry to ensure that a guilty man will go free.
This is a quite shocking misunderstanding of how judicial processes
involving juries work.
Of course it doesn't.
If a unanimous verdict is required, it is required in order to
acquit as well as to convict.-a Unless all 12 are agreed one way *or* >>>> the other, the jury is hung, no verdict is returned, and it may
result in a re-trial.
If, after due consideration as determined by the judge, a UK jury is
unable to reach a unanimous verdict, it will be instructed to reach
a verdict one way or the other on which at least 10 of them are agreed. >>>>
Then of course, 'one or two dunderheads, fuckwits or idiots in a
hurry' won't deprive the rest of the jury of coming to at least a
10-2 verdict opposing them.-a It would take at least three even to
result in a hung jury.
It is of course a truism that juries can very easily convict an
innocent person as an alternative to letting a guilty person go free.
No it isn't.
Oh yes it is...
There are tremendous safeguards in place right from the
start to protect the innocent.-a First, the police must have
reasonable, real suspicion of a criminal offence.
Not so. They must be trying to solve (or in their jargon, "detect") a
crime, and they look to see whom they can charge with the offence,
building the best possible case they can against someone who may or may
not be guilty. Having past form obviously attracts the attention of the police.
Second, the trained lawyers at
the CPS must be convinced that there is sufficient evidence to provide
a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction at trial, meaning more
than a 50% chance.
Which is ludicrous, since it is quite impossible to calculate any
specific percentage. It's a fraudulent, tick-box exercise to please the bureaucrats.
Third, the jury is told that, in order to convict, it
must be 'sure' of the defendant's guilt.-a Fourth, all twelve of the
jurors need to agree on guilt or, in a small minority of cases, at
least 10 of them.
No human being can honestly be "sure" of anything that they did not personally witness, so that's just a fiction that conveniently justifies
the existence of juries.
Far more of the actually guilty get away with what they've done
because of all those stages than innocents who get convicted.
You made that up. You obviously can't prove it.
The jurors who are dunderheads, fuckwits or severely neurodivergent
will sometimes slow down the deliberations by misunderstanding or
misinterpreting key pieces of evidence,
That's why juries are locked in a closed room until they reach a
verdict on which they are all agreed.-a They discuss the evidence, they
argue about it, they influence others, they persuade others.-a It's
what it's all about.-a And one or two difficult ones who hold to their
view regardless when all the others disagree with them will be
legitimately sidelined.-a It doesn't have to be a rapid process; it's
supposed to be a sound one.
There is no objective way of assessing whether a jury has weighed up all
the evidence competently.
One obvious danger is that one or more jurors will disregard the instructions of the judge and research the case on the internet at the
end of each day. They might find that the defendant has form. They might find that people in news reports claim to be witnesses, yet they haven't given their evidence in court.-a If this happens, the misbehaving juror
is expected to confess his crime to the judge and take whatever
punishment is meted out. Or the other jurors are supposed to grass on
him. But they might not know, or they might be too timid to grass on him.
and any jurors who are bored or keen to get away will simply go along
with the majority because they no longer trust their own instincts.
If they're in a minority of one or two, they'll be outgunned anyway.
But it's a bit dismissive and wrong to imply that any significant
number of jurors don't take the matter and their responsibilities
seriously.
It's a bit dismissing and wrong to imply that the jury system usually delivers the appropriate verdict.
If there is a mistrial, it can mean a lot of time and expense to try
that defendant again, so that the defendant and the complainant have
their lived on hold for another year, maybe longer.
A hung jury is not a mistrial but an occupational hazard.-a And it
occurs in only about 0.7% of jury trials anyway, ie a tiny number.
Still, all's well, the system is a time-honoured one and by keeping
the deliberations in the jury room strictly confidential nobody need
ever know that injustice has been done.
The wrongly convicted will let us know.-a After all, they have an
interest in doing so.
There are plenty of defendants pursuing appeals, or didn't you know that?
And I'm sure we have people on usenet who will assure us that they
themselves were on a jury and it was brilliant and every argument was
carefully weighed and considered. Easy for them to say, when they
aren't actually lawyers.
Who better than ordinary people?-a Even you have shown above how very
little you know about the place and function of a jury in our judicial
system despite your professed legal knowledge.
Even you have shown how credulous and trusting you are in the benefits
of trial by jury. I suspect that you aren't really as credulous as you
seem to be, but you enjoy an argument.
Still, all's well, the system is a time-honoured one and by keeping the >deliberations in the jury room strictly confidential nobody need ever
know that injustice has been done. And I'm sure we have people on usenet
who will assure us that they themselves were on a jury and it was
brilliant and every argument was carefully weighed and considered. Easy
for them to say, when they aren't actually lawyers.
One obvious danger is that one or more jurors will disregard the >instructions of the judge and research the case on the internet at the
end of each day. They might find that the defendant has form. They might >find that people in news reports claim to be witnesses, yet they haven't >given their evidence in court. If this happens, the misbehaving juror
is expected to confess his crime to the judge and take whatever
punishment is meted out. Or the other jurors are supposed to grass on
him. But they might not know, or they might be too timid to grass on him.
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 11:10:10 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Still, all's well, the system is a time-honoured one and by keeping the >>deliberations in the jury room strictly confidential nobody need ever
know that injustice has been done. And I'm sure we have people on usenet >>who will assure us that they themselves were on a jury and it was >>brilliant and every argument was carefully weighed and considered. Easy >>for them to say, when they aren't actually lawyers.
I've been on a jury, and it was a very rewarding experience, and every argument was carefully weighed and considered. And none of us were
lawyers.
But that didn't matter, because we weren't being asked to make
decisions about the law. We were asked to make decisions about the
facts. In the first trial I served on, we had to decide whether a
young lad had, in the course of a night out clubbing, kicked and
stamped on another reveller who got into a dispute with his group.
Based on the CCTV footage, and the witness statements, we unanimously concluded that he hadn't.
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 23:11:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
One obvious danger is that one or more jurors will disregard the
instructions of the judge and research the case on the internet at the
end of each day. They might find that the defendant has form. They might
find that people in news reports claim to be witnesses, yet they haven't
given their evidence in court. If this happens, the misbehaving juror
is expected to confess his crime to the judge and take whatever
punishment is meted out. Or the other jurors are supposed to grass on
him. But they might not know, or they might be too timid to grass on him.
I have to confess that in one of the trials where I was a juror, I was very, very, tempted to do a bit of original research, for the simple reason that neither the prosecution nor the defence seemed to have bothered to do it, despite the fact that if they were right - and could show that in court - it would have been a very compelling piece of evidence.
A particular discrepancy between the testimony of the defendant and the testimony of the complainant revolved around a door in the house they had,
at the time, occupied. The defendant's testimony was that the complainant's account of the incident could not possibly be right, because the way the
door hung, and the way it opened into the room, made the complainant's account impossible. The complainant alleged that the defendant was deliberately misrepresenting the door in order to cast unjustified doubt on the complainant's testimony.
This may sound arcane, but it actually mattered. If the door had opened the other way (ie, had the hinges been on the right rather than the left), then one key part of the complainant's testimony would have been significantly undermined. On the other hand, if had opened the way the complainant said, then the fact that the defendant was seemingly trying to assert otherwise, then it sould cast doubt on the defendant's veracity.
The problem was that nobody seemed to have bothered to verify this, despite it being fairly easy to verify. And I knew where the house was - the
location had been mentioned in earlier evidence. It was somewhere I drove past fairly often. So when the judge decided to halt proceedings for the day and resume tomorrow, I was incredibly tempted to drive out there and see if
I could peer through the front window and look at the door in question.
In the end, I didn't, for the fairly simple reason that it was dark by the time I got home, and I didn't think a trip to the other side of the city would be worth it if the curtains on the house were closed. But the fact
that neither the defence nor the prosecution had bothered to verify this information and present it as evidence really annoyed me. It significantly reduced my opinion of the legal profession.
Mark
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 23:11:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
One obvious danger is that one or more jurors will disregard the >>instructions of the judge and research the case on the internet at the
end of each day. They might find that the defendant has form. They might >>find that people in news reports claim to be witnesses, yet they haven't >>given their evidence in court. If this happens, the misbehaving juror
is expected to confess his crime to the judge and take whatever
punishment is meted out. Or the other jurors are supposed to grass on
him. But they might not know, or they might be too timid to grass on
him.
I have to confess that in one of the trials where I was a juror, I was
very,
very, tempted to do a bit of original research, for the simple reason
that neither the prosecution nor the defence seemed to have bothered to
do it, despite the fact that if they were right - and could show that in court - it would have been a very compelling piece of evidence.
A particular discrepancy between the testimony of the defendant and the testimony of the complainant revolved around a door in the house they
had, at the time, occupied. The defendant's testimony was that the complainant's account of the incident could not possibly be right,
because the way the door hung, and the way it opened into the room, made
the complainant's account impossible. The complainant alleged that the defendant was deliberately misrepresenting the door in order to cast unjustified doubt on the complainant's testimony.
Reminiscent of the juror played by Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men. Having
heard the prosecutor claim that the murder knife was highly unusual and he >had never seen one like it before, the juror goes to a shop in the >neighbourhood of the murder and buys a knife very like it. He produces it
in the jury room to great dramatic effect.
Would that count (these days) as "researching the case"? It seems
legitimate to me. And I do not understand the new obsession with not >allowing people to research stuff on the Internet.
If you hear a witness
(especially an expert witness) make a claim in court that sounds >implausible, it is surely reasonable to look it up, whether on the
Internet or in an old-fashioned textbook.
Prosecutors' claims about the--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
probative value of DNA evidence is a very obvious example.
And what about background information that you knew already, because of
your own experience or education or profession, and did not have to look
up? Are you not supposed to use that either? Why not?
On Fri, 05 Dec 2025 23:35:37 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 23:11:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
One obvious danger is that one or more jurors will disregard the
instructions of the judge and research the case on the internet at the
end of each day. They might find that the defendant has form. They might >>> find that people in news reports claim to be witnesses, yet they haven't >>> given their evidence in court. If this happens, the misbehaving juror
is expected to confess his crime to the judge and take whatever
punishment is meted out. Or the other jurors are supposed to grass on
him. But they might not know, or they might be too timid to grass on
him.
I have to confess that in one of the trials where I was a juror, I was
very,
very, tempted to do a bit of original research, for the simple reason
that neither the prosecution nor the defence seemed to have bothered to
do it, despite the fact that if they were right - and could show that in
court - it would have been a very compelling piece of evidence.
A particular discrepancy between the testimony of the defendant and the
testimony of the complainant revolved around a door in the house they
had, at the time, occupied. The defendant's testimony was that the
complainant's account of the incident could not possibly be right,
because the way the door hung, and the way it opened into the room, made
the complainant's account impossible. The complainant alleged that the
defendant was deliberately misrepresenting the door in order to cast
unjustified doubt on the complainant's testimony.
Reminiscent of the juror played by Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men. Having
heard the prosecutor claim that the murder knife was highly unusual and he had never seen one like it before, the juror goes to a shop in the neighbourhood of the murder and buys a knife very like it. He produces it
in the jury room to great dramatic effect.
Would that count (these days) as "researching the case"?
It seems
legitimate to me. And I do not understand the new obsession with not
allowing people to research stuff on the Internet. If you hear a witness (especially an expert witness) make a claim in court that sounds
implausible, it is surely reasonable to look it up, whether on the
Internet or in an old-fashioned textbook. Prosecutors' claims about the probative value of DNA evidence is a very obvious example.
And what about background information that you knew already, because of
your own experience or education or profession, and did not have to look
up? Are you not supposed to use that either? Why not?
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 23:11:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
One obvious danger is that one or more jurors will disregard the
instructions of the judge and research the case on the internet at the
end of each day. They might find that the defendant has form. They might
find that people in news reports claim to be witnesses, yet they haven't
given their evidence in court. If this happens, the misbehaving juror
is expected to confess his crime to the judge and take whatever
punishment is meted out. Or the other jurors are supposed to grass on
him. But they might not know, or they might be too timid to grass on him.
I have to confess that in one of the trials where I was a juror, I was very, very, tempted to do a bit of original research, for the simple reason that neither the prosecution nor the defence seemed to have bothered to do it, despite the fact that if they were right - and could show that in court - it would have been a very compelling piece of evidence.
A particular discrepancy between the testimony of the defendant and the testimony of the complainant revolved around a door in the house they had,
at the time, occupied. The defendant's testimony was that the complainant's account of the incident could not possibly be right, because the way the
door hung, and the way it opened into the room, made the complainant's account impossible. The complainant alleged that the defendant was deliberately misrepresenting the door in order to cast unjustified doubt on the complainant's testimony.
This may sound arcane, but it actually mattered. If the door had opened the other way (ie, had the hinges been on the right rather than the left), then one key part of the complainant's testimony would have been significantly undermined. On the other hand, if had opened the way the complainant said, then the fact that the defendant was seemingly trying to assert otherwise, then it sould cast doubt on the defendant's veracity.
The problem was that nobody seemed to have bothered to verify this, despite it being fairly easy to verify. And I knew where the house was - the
location had been mentioned in earlier evidence. It was somewhere I drove past fairly often. So when the judge decided to halt proceedings for the day and resume tomorrow, I was incredibly tempted to drive out there and see if
I could peer through the front window and look at the door in question.
In the end, I didn't, for the fairly simple reason that it was dark by the time I got home, and I didn't think a trip to the other side of the city would be worth it if the curtains on the house were closed.
But the fact
that neither the defence nor the prosecution had bothered to verify this information and present it as evidence really annoyed me. It significantly reduced my opinion of the legal profession.
On 05/12/2025 23:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 23:11:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
One obvious danger is that one or more jurors will disregard the
instructions of the judge and research the case on the internet at the
end of each day. They might find that the defendant has form. They might >>> find that people in news reports claim to be witnesses, yet they haven't >>> given their evidence in court.-a If this happens, the misbehaving juror
is expected to confess his crime to the judge and take whatever
punishment is meted out. Or the other jurors are supposed to grass on
him. But they might not know, or they might be too timid to grass on
him.
I have to confess that in one of the trials where I was a juror, I was
very,
very, tempted to do a bit of original research, for the simple reason
that
neither the prosecution nor the defence seemed to have bothered to do it,
despite the fact that if they were right - and could show that in
court - it
would have been a very compelling piece of evidence.
A particular discrepancy between the testimony of the defendant and the
testimony of the complainant revolved around a door in the house they
had,
at the time, occupied. The defendant's testimony was that the
complainant's
account of the incident could not possibly be right, because the way the
door hung, and the way it opened into the room, made the complainant's
account impossible. The complainant alleged that the defendant was
deliberately misrepresenting the door in order to cast unjustified
doubt on
the complainant's testimony.
This may sound arcane, but it actually mattered. If the door had
opened the
other way (ie, had the hinges been on the right rather than the left),
then
one key part of the complainant's testimony would have been significantly
undermined. On the other hand, if had opened the way the complainant
said,
then the fact that the defendant was seemingly trying to assert
otherwise,
then it sould cast doubt on the defendant's veracity.
The problem was that nobody seemed to have bothered to verify this,
despite
it being fairly easy to verify. And I knew where the house was - the
location had been mentioned in earlier evidence. It was somewhere I drove
past fairly often. So when the judge decided to halt proceedings for
the day
and resume tomorrow, I was incredibly tempted to drive out there and
see if
I could peer through the front window and look at the door in question.
In the end, I didn't, for the fairly simple reason that it was dark by
the
time I got home, and I didn't think a trip to the other side of the city
would be worth it if the curtains on the house were closed. But the fact
that neither the defence nor the prosecution had bothered to verify this
information and present it as evidence really annoyed me. It
significantly
reduced my opinion of the legal profession.
Mark
Is there a mechanism for asking for clarification of the 'facts'? I
thought questions could be posed to the judge?
And I do not understand the new obsession with not
allowing people to research stuff on the Internet. ?
On 06/12/2025 00:00, Fredxx wrote:
On 05/12/2025 23:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 23:11:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
One obvious danger is that one or more jurors will disregard the
instructions of the judge and research the case on the internet at the >>>> end of each day. They might find that the defendant has form. They might >>>> find that people in news reports claim to be witnesses, yet they haven't >>>> given their evidence in court.-a If this happens, the misbehaving juror >>>> is expected to confess his crime to the judge and take whatever
punishment is meted out. Or the other jurors are supposed to grass on
him. But they might not know, or they might be too timid to grass on
him.
I have to confess that in one of the trials where I was a juror, I was
very,
very, tempted to do a bit of original research, for the simple reason
that
neither the prosecution nor the defence seemed to have bothered to do it, >>> despite the fact that if they were right - and could show that in
court - it
would have been a very compelling piece of evidence.
A particular discrepancy between the testimony of the defendant and the
testimony of the complainant revolved around a door in the house they
had,
at the time, occupied. The defendant's testimony was that the
complainant's
account of the incident could not possibly be right, because the way the >>> door hung, and the way it opened into the room, made the complainant's
account impossible. The complainant alleged that the defendant was
deliberately misrepresenting the door in order to cast unjustified
doubt on
the complainant's testimony.
This may sound arcane, but it actually mattered. If the door had
opened the
other way (ie, had the hinges been on the right rather than the left),
then
one key part of the complainant's testimony would have been significantly >>> undermined. On the other hand, if had opened the way the complainant
said,
then the fact that the defendant was seemingly trying to assert
otherwise,
then it sould cast doubt on the defendant's veracity.
The problem was that nobody seemed to have bothered to verify this,
despite
it being fairly easy to verify. And I knew where the house was - the
location had been mentioned in earlier evidence. It was somewhere I drove >>> past fairly often. So when the judge decided to halt proceedings for
the day
and resume tomorrow, I was incredibly tempted to drive out there and
see if
I could peer through the front window and look at the door in question.
In the end, I didn't, for the fairly simple reason that it was dark by
the
time I got home, and I didn't think a trip to the other side of the city >>> would be worth it if the curtains on the house were closed. But the fact >>> that neither the defence nor the prosecution had bothered to verify this >>> information and present it as evidence really annoyed me. It
significantly
reduced my opinion of the legal profession.
Mark
Is there a mechanism for asking for clarification of the 'facts'? I
thought questions could be posed to the judge?
Well, that's a bit pointless. He won't know the answer unless it was
raised in open court and you've all forgotten.
What he'll say is it's *your* duty to decide the facts and come to a conclusion whether the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. So,
go away and decide.
This may sound arcane, but it actually mattered. If the door had opened the other way (ie, had the hinges been on the right rather than the left), then one key part of the complainant's testimony would have been significantly undermined. On the other hand, if had opened the way the complainant said, then the fact that the defendant was seemingly trying to assert otherwise, then it sould cast doubt on the defendant's veracity.
The problem was that nobody seemed to have bothered to verify this, despite it being fairly easy to verify. And I knew where the house was - the
location had been mentioned in earlier evidence. It was somewhere I drove past fairly often. So when the judge decided to halt proceedings for the day and resume tomorrow, I was incredibly tempted to drive out there and see if
I could peer through the front window and look at the door in question.
In the end, I didn't, for the fairly simple reason that it was dark by the time I got home, and I didn't think a trip to the other side of the city would be worth it if the curtains on the house were closed. But the fact
that neither the defence nor the prosecution had bothered to verify this information and present it as evidence really annoyed me. It significantly reduced my opinion of the legal profession.
You can bring your own experiences of course into the jury room.
However, if what you bring is not merely opinion but evidence that could have been argued over in court, that is tainted.-a After all, you may not
be a reliable source whatever you maintain.
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 11:10:10 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Still, all's well, the system is a time-honoured one and by keeping the
deliberations in the jury room strictly confidential nobody need ever
know that injustice has been done. And I'm sure we have people on usenet
who will assure us that they themselves were on a jury and it was
brilliant and every argument was carefully weighed and considered. Easy
for them to say, when they aren't actually lawyers.
I've been on a jury, and it was a very rewarding experience, and every argument was carefully weighed and considered. And none of us were lawyers.
But that didn't matter, because we weren't being asked to make decisions about the law. We were asked to make decisions about the facts. In the first trial I served on, we had to decide whether a young lad had, in the course
of a night out clubbing, kicked and stamped on another reveller who got into a dispute with his group. Based on the CCTV footage, and the witness statements, we unanimously concluded that he hadn't. In the second, we had
to decide whether a man had done various actions, including, inter alia, sticking his fingers down the knickers of his stepdaughter and touching her genitals, and rubbing his exposed and erect penis against her. Based on the testimony of both the defendant and the complainant, we concluded, by a majority of at least 10 to 2, that he had.
In neither of those cases did we have to consider the law. We didn't have to decide whether the young lad had committed assault, or the stepfather had committed sexual assault. The definitions of those offences were irrelevant to our discussions. All we had to do was decide whether the actions
described by the prosecution took place or not.
The argument that juries are liable to get it wrong because they are not legally trained is, I think, based on a misconception of their role. It wasn't our job to decide whether kicking someone constitutes assault, or whether groping someone constitutes sexual assault. That's a legal definition, and a matter for the judge and the lawyers. Our role was simply to decide whether the kicking and groping had, or had not, taken place as described by the prosecution.
I do think it's regrettable that the jury room is so opaque. I don't think it's necessary for juries to be required to explain their decision-making. And I do think that it's right that the discussions which take place in the jury room are not a matter of public record. But I also think that jurors should be permitted to disclose their discussions to properly authorised researchers under suitable conditions of confidentiality. I think that doing so would be likely to increase, rather than reduce, public and legal confidence in the jury system.
I can't, and won't, disclose what went on in the jury room in either of
those cases. My understanding of the Juries Act 1974 section 20D is that I can't even tell you how my vote was cast in the jury room (although in one case it's easily inferrable from the verdict, and in the other it's a reasonable assumption from the verdict). But I will say that in both trials, despite telling myself that I should not, I couldn't avoid making an initial presumption based solely on the wording on the charge sheet, undoubtedly influenced by my own preconceptions. And in both cases, the vote I
eventually cast in the jury room was different to my initial presumption, having been persuaded to change my mind by the witness testimony and the legal advocacy.
On 05/12/2025 23:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 11:10:10 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Still, all's well, the system is a time-honoured one and by keeping the
deliberations in the jury room strictly confidential nobody need ever
know that injustice has been done. And I'm sure we have people on usenet >>> who will assure us that they themselves were on a jury and it was
brilliant and every argument was carefully weighed and considered. Easy
for them to say, when they aren't actually lawyers.
I've been on a jury, and it was a very rewarding experience, and every
argument was carefully weighed and considered. And none of us were
lawyers.
But that didn't matter, because we weren't being asked to make decisions
about the law. We were asked to make decisions about the facts. In the
first
trial I served on, we had to decide whether a young lad had, in the
course
of a night out clubbing, kicked and stamped on another reveller who
got into
a dispute with his group. Based on the CCTV footage, and the witness
statements, we unanimously concluded that he hadn't. In the second, we
had
to decide whether a man had done various actions, including, inter alia,
sticking his fingers down the knickers of his stepdaughter and
touching her
genitals, and rubbing his exposed and erect penis against her. Based
on the
testimony of both the defendant and the complainant, we concluded, by a
majority of at least 10 to 2, that he had.
In neither of those cases did we have to consider the law. We didn't
have to
decide whether the young lad had committed assault, or the stepfather had
committed sexual assault. The definitions of those offences were
irrelevant
to our discussions. All we had to do was decide whether the actions
described by the prosecution took place or not.
The argument that juries are liable to get it wrong because they are not
legally trained is, I think, based on a misconception of their role. It
wasn't our job to decide whether kicking someone constitutes assault, or
whether groping someone constitutes sexual assault. That's a legal
definition, and a matter for the judge and the lawyers. Our role was
simply
to decide whether the kicking and groping had, or had not, taken place as
described by the prosecution.
I do think it's regrettable that the jury room is so opaque. I don't
think
it's necessary for juries to be required to explain their decision-
making.
And I do think that it's right that the discussions which take place
in the
jury room are not a matter of public record. But I also think that jurors
should be permitted to disclose their discussions to properly authorised
researchers under suitable conditions of confidentiality. I think that
doing
so would be likely to increase, rather than reduce, public and legal
confidence in the jury system.
I can't, and won't, disclose what went on in the jury room in either of
those cases. My understanding of the Juries Act 1974 section 20D is
that I
can't even tell you how my vote was cast in the jury room (although in
one
case it's easily inferrable from the verdict, and in the other it's a
reasonable assumption from the verdict). But I will say that in both
trials,
despite telling myself that I should not, I couldn't avoid making an
initial
presumption based solely on the wording on the charge sheet, undoubtedly
influenced by my own preconceptions. And in both cases, the vote I
eventually cast in the jury room was different to my initial presumption,
having been persuaded to change my mind by the witness testimony and the
legal advocacy.
If you had been a different juror in a different jury room and your experience had been that several people were easily swayed by more
dominant jurors, and that people misinterpreted the directions of the
judge, and that several jurors were in such a hurry to get home that
they simply voted with the majority each time, then you would not be permitted to reveal your concerns to the press or the public unless you
were willing to risk going to prison.
Anyway, for an example of a really stupid jury (or maybe an overthinking
or pedantic or neurodivergent jury), look at the Vicky Pryce case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
On 06/12/2025 09:01, Norman Wells wrote:
You can bring your own experiences of course into the jury room.
And there's a major flaw.
My experience might be... that black men tend to be threatening and
violent, and gang members, and drug dealers, and always abandon their
women folk.
That homosexuals prey upon children.-a That women regularly make up accusations of rape because a friend of a friend had that experience at university.
Etc.
No doubt counterbalanced in the jury room by the life experiences of... well, other Daily Mail readers.
On 05/12/2025 23:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
In the end, I didn't, for the fairly simple reason that it was dark by the >> time I got home, and I didn't think a trip to the other side of the city
would be worth it if the curtains on the house were closed. But the fact
that neither the defence nor the prosecution had bothered to verify this
information and present it as evidence really annoyed me. It significantly >> reduced my opinion of the legal profession.
Is there a mechanism for asking for clarification of the 'facts'? I
thought questions could be posed to the judge?
On 06/12/2025 01:19 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 05/12/2025 23:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 11:10:10 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Still, all's well, the system is a time-honoured one and by keeping the >>>> deliberations in the jury room strictly confidential nobody need ever
know that injustice has been done. And I'm sure we have people on usenet >>>> who will assure us that they themselves were on a jury and it was
brilliant and every argument was carefully weighed and considered. Easy >>>> for them to say, when they aren't actually lawyers.
I've been on a jury, and it was a very rewarding experience, and every
argument was carefully weighed and considered. And none of us were
lawyers.
But that didn't matter, because we weren't being asked to make decisions >>> about the law. We were asked to make decisions about the facts. In the
first
trial I served on, we had to decide whether a young lad had, in the
course
of a night out clubbing, kicked and stamped on another reveller who
got into
a dispute with his group. Based on the CCTV footage, and the witness
statements, we unanimously concluded that he hadn't. In the second, we
had
to decide whether a man had done various actions, including, inter alia, >>> sticking his fingers down the knickers of his stepdaughter and
touching her
genitals, and rubbing his exposed and erect penis against her. Based
on the
testimony of both the defendant and the complainant, we concluded, by a
majority of at least 10 to 2, that he had.
In neither of those cases did we have to consider the law. We didn't
have to
decide whether the young lad had committed assault, or the stepfather had >>> committed sexual assault. The definitions of those offences were
irrelevant
to our discussions. All we had to do was decide whether the actions
described by the prosecution took place or not.
The argument that juries are liable to get it wrong because they are not >>> legally trained is, I think, based on a misconception of their role. It
wasn't our job to decide whether kicking someone constitutes assault, or >>> whether groping someone constitutes sexual assault. That's a legal
definition, and a matter for the judge and the lawyers. Our role was
simply
to decide whether the kicking and groping had, or had not, taken place as >>> described by the prosecution.
I do think it's regrettable that the jury room is so opaque. I don't
think
it's necessary for juries to be required to explain their decision-
making.
And I do think that it's right that the discussions which take place
in the
jury room are not a matter of public record. But I also think that jurors >>> should be permitted to disclose their discussions to properly authorised >>> researchers under suitable conditions of confidentiality. I think that
doing
so would be likely to increase, rather than reduce, public and legal
confidence in the jury system.
I can't, and won't, disclose what went on in the jury room in either of
those cases. My understanding of the Juries Act 1974 section 20D is
that I
can't even tell you how my vote was cast in the jury room (although in
one
case it's easily inferrable from the verdict, and in the other it's a
reasonable assumption from the verdict). But I will say that in both
trials,
despite telling myself that I should not, I couldn't avoid making an
initial
presumption based solely on the wording on the charge sheet, undoubtedly >>> influenced by my own preconceptions. And in both cases, the vote I
eventually cast in the jury room was different to my initial presumption, >>> having been persuaded to change my mind by the witness testimony and the >>> legal advocacy.
If you had been a different juror in a different jury room and your
experience had been that several people were easily swayed by more
dominant jurors, and that people misinterpreted the directions of the
judge, and that several jurors were in such a hurry to get home that
they simply voted with the majority each time, then you would not be
permitted to reveal your concerns to the press or the public unless you
were willing to risk going to prison.
Anyway, for an example of a really stupid jury (or maybe an overthinking
or pedantic or neurodivergent jury), look at the Vicky Pryce case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
The gist of that seems (to me) that the jury simply didn't want to
convict Pryce of conspiracy to pervert the court of justice despite the obvious evidence. None of us here have any way of knowing the true
position, but it seems to me that there must be a LOT of "penalty points swapping" being done by spouses or partners. I even remember an episode
of "Lead Balloon" which featured it as a comedy element without
examining or commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it.
If you had been a different juror in a different jury room and your experience had been that several people were easily swayed by more
dominant jurors, and that people misinterpreted the directions of the
judge, and that several jurors were in such a hurry to get home that
they simply voted with the majority each time, then you would not be permitted to reveal your concerns to the press or the public unless you
were willing to risk going to prison.
On 06/12/2025 13:13, The Todal wrote:
On 06/12/2025 09:01, Norman Wells wrote:
You can bring your own experiences of course into the jury room.
And there's a major flaw.
My experience might be... that black men tend to be threatening and
violent, and gang members, and drug dealers, and always abandon their
women folk.
That homosexuals prey upon children.-a That women regularly make up
accusations of rape because a friend of a friend had that experience
at university.
Etc.
No doubt counterbalanced in the jury room by the life experiences
of... well, other Daily Mail readers.
There is, admittedly, a chance that all twelve randomly selected members
of a particular jury are all bigots with no sense of civic
responsibility who all think exactly the same way and are prepared to
ignore all the evidence presented in court in coming to their verdict.
I would suggest, however, that the chance of that in UK society as it is
is infinitesimally small.
Your experience alone would be wholly insufficient.-a It would have to be shared by at least 9 others out of the remaining 11 to return a verdict
your way.
If it is, however, who is to say the decision would then be wrong?-a It
is then just jury nullification, the possibility of which many hold dear
as a protection against laws that society regards as totally unreasonable.
On 06/12/2025 13:19, The Todal wrote:
If you had been a different juror in a different jury room and your
experience had been that several people were easily swayed by more
dominant jurors, and that people misinterpreted the directions of the
judge, and that several jurors were in such a hurry to get home that
they simply voted with the majority each time, then you would not be
permitted to reveal your concerns to the press or the public unless
you were willing to risk going to prison.
You would also have to be the sole dissenter or with a maximum of just
one other of similar mind, overruled by at least 10 of the appointed jury.
Are you saying that your powers of persuasion in the jury room,
especially when you think you're in the right and have some sort of
legal background, would be inadequate to change that even to get to the position where the jury would be hung, ie that you couldn't get three
round to your way of thinking?
On Fri, 05 Dec 2025 23:35:37 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 23:11:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
One obvious danger is that one or more jurors will disregard the >>>instructions of the judge and research the case on the internet at the >>>end of each day. They might find that the defendant has form. They might >>>find that people in news reports claim to be witnesses, yet they haven't >>>given their evidence in court. If this happens, the misbehaving juror
is expected to confess his crime to the judge and take whatever >>>punishment is meted out. Or the other jurors are supposed to grass on >>>him. But they might not know, or they might be too timid to grass on
him.
I have to confess that in one of the trials where I was a juror, I was
very,
very, tempted to do a bit of original research, for the simple reason
that neither the prosecution nor the defence seemed to have bothered to
do it, despite the fact that if they were right - and could show that in
court - it would have been a very compelling piece of evidence.
A particular discrepancy between the testimony of the defendant and the
testimony of the complainant revolved around a door in the house they
had, at the time, occupied. The defendant's testimony was that the
complainant's account of the incident could not possibly be right,
because the way the door hung, and the way it opened into the room, made
the complainant's account impossible. The complainant alleged that the
defendant was deliberately misrepresenting the door in order to cast
unjustified doubt on the complainant's testimony.
Reminiscent of the juror played by Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men. Having
heard the prosecutor claim that the murder knife was highly unusual and he >had never seen one like it before, the juror goes to a shop in the >neighbourhood of the murder and buys a knife very like it. He produces it
in the jury room to great dramatic effect.
Would that count (these days) as "researching the case"? It seems
legitimate to me.
And I do not understand the new obsession with not
allowing people to research stuff on the Internet. If you hear a witness >(especially an expert witness) make a claim in court that sounds >implausible, it is surely reasonable to look it up, whether on the
Internet or in an old-fashioned textbook. Prosecutors' claims about the >probative value of DNA evidence is a very obvious example.
And what about background information that you knew already, because of
your own experience or education or profession, and did not have to look
up? Are you not supposed to use that either? Why not?
On 2025-12-05, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 11:10:10 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>Still, all's well, the system is a time-honoured one and by keeping the >>>deliberations in the jury room strictly confidential nobody need ever >>>know that injustice has been done. And I'm sure we have people on usenet >>>who will assure us that they themselves were on a jury and it was >>>brilliant and every argument was carefully weighed and considered. Easy >>>for them to say, when they aren't actually lawyers.
I've been on a jury, and it was a very rewarding experience, and every
argument was carefully weighed and considered. And none of us were
lawyers.
But that didn't matter, because we weren't being asked to make
decisions about the law. We were asked to make decisions about the
facts. In the first trial I served on, we had to decide whether a
young lad had, in the course of a night out clubbing, kicked and
stamped on another reveller who got into a dispute with his group.
Based on the CCTV footage, and the witness statements, we unanimously
concluded that he hadn't.
If you had decided he had, you might have then had to decide whether
or not it was reasonable force in response to defend against the other >person. There are a lot of laws which are written involving the concept
of the "reasonableness", with the assumption that whether whatever
happened was reasonable or not would be judged by the common man,
i.e. a jury. Getting rid of the jury violates the assumptions built in
to these laws.
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 00:00:35 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 05/12/2025 23:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
In the end, I didn't, for the fairly simple reason that it was dark by the >>> time I got home, and I didn't think a trip to the other side of the city >>> would be worth it if the curtains on the house were closed. But the fact >>> that neither the defence nor the prosecution had bothered to verify this >>> information and present it as evidence really annoyed me. It significantly >>> reduced my opinion of the legal profession.
Is there a mechanism for asking for clarification of the 'facts'? I
thought questions could be posed to the judge?
It is possible to pass a note to the judge, yes. My assumption was that neither side actually knew, for certain, and wouldn't have been able to supply the information in time.
Mark
On 2025-12-06, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/12/2025 01:19 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 05/12/2025 23:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 11:10:10 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Still, all's well, the system is a time-honoured one and by keeping the >>>>> deliberations in the jury room strictly confidential nobody need ever >>>>> know that injustice has been done. And I'm sure we have people on usenet >>>>> who will assure us that they themselves were on a jury and it was
brilliant and every argument was carefully weighed and considered. Easy >>>>> for them to say, when they aren't actually lawyers.
I've been on a jury, and it was a very rewarding experience, and every >>>> argument was carefully weighed and considered. And none of us were
lawyers.
But that didn't matter, because we weren't being asked to make decisions >>>> about the law. We were asked to make decisions about the facts. In the >>>> first
trial I served on, we had to decide whether a young lad had, in the
course
of a night out clubbing, kicked and stamped on another reveller who
got into
a dispute with his group. Based on the CCTV footage, and the witness
statements, we unanimously concluded that he hadn't. In the second, we >>>> had
to decide whether a man had done various actions, including, inter alia, >>>> sticking his fingers down the knickers of his stepdaughter and
touching her
genitals, and rubbing his exposed and erect penis against her. Based
on the
testimony of both the defendant and the complainant, we concluded, by a >>>> majority of at least 10 to 2, that he had.
In neither of those cases did we have to consider the law. We didn't
have to
decide whether the young lad had committed assault, or the stepfather had >>>> committed sexual assault. The definitions of those offences were
irrelevant
to our discussions. All we had to do was decide whether the actions
described by the prosecution took place or not.
The argument that juries are liable to get it wrong because they are not >>>> legally trained is, I think, based on a misconception of their role. It >>>> wasn't our job to decide whether kicking someone constitutes assault, or >>>> whether groping someone constitutes sexual assault. That's a legal
definition, and a matter for the judge and the lawyers. Our role was
simply
to decide whether the kicking and groping had, or had not, taken place as >>>> described by the prosecution.
I do think it's regrettable that the jury room is so opaque. I don't
think
it's necessary for juries to be required to explain their decision-
making.
And I do think that it's right that the discussions which take place
in the
jury room are not a matter of public record. But I also think that jurors >>>> should be permitted to disclose their discussions to properly authorised >>>> researchers under suitable conditions of confidentiality. I think that >>>> doing
so would be likely to increase, rather than reduce, public and legal
confidence in the jury system.
I can't, and won't, disclose what went on in the jury room in either of >>>> those cases. My understanding of the Juries Act 1974 section 20D is
that I
can't even tell you how my vote was cast in the jury room (although in >>>> one
case it's easily inferrable from the verdict, and in the other it's a
reasonable assumption from the verdict). But I will say that in both
trials,
despite telling myself that I should not, I couldn't avoid making an
initial
presumption based solely on the wording on the charge sheet, undoubtedly >>>> influenced by my own preconceptions. And in both cases, the vote I
eventually cast in the jury room was different to my initial presumption, >>>> having been persuaded to change my mind by the witness testimony and the >>>> legal advocacy.
If you had been a different juror in a different jury room and your
experience had been that several people were easily swayed by more
dominant jurors, and that people misinterpreted the directions of the
judge, and that several jurors were in such a hurry to get home that
they simply voted with the majority each time, then you would not be
permitted to reveal your concerns to the press or the public unless you
were willing to risk going to prison.
Anyway, for an example of a really stupid jury (or maybe an overthinking >>> or pedantic or neurodivergent jury), look at the Vicky Pryce case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
The gist of that seems (to me) that the jury simply didn't want to
convict Pryce of conspiracy to pervert the court of justice despite the
obvious evidence. None of us here have any way of knowing the true
position, but it seems to me that there must be a LOT of "penalty points
swapping" being done by spouses or partners. I even remember an episode
of "Lead Balloon" which featured it as a comedy element without
examining or commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it.
They didn't "not want to", but she was using the "marital coercion"
defence, a stupid and anachronistic rule that only still existed by
accident. They were trying in vain to make sense out of a rule that
was simply nonsensical in the modern world.
Fortunately the rule was finally abolished a year later.
On 6 Dec 2025 at 14:39:56 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 00:00:35 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 05/12/2025 23:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
In the end, I didn't, for the fairly simple reason that it was dark by the >>>> time I got home, and I didn't think a trip to the other side of the city >>>> would be worth it if the curtains on the house were closed. But the fact >>>> that neither the defence nor the prosecution had bothered to verify this >>>> information and present it as evidence really annoyed me. It significantly >>>> reduced my opinion of the legal profession.
Is there a mechanism for asking for clarification of the 'facts'? I
thought questions could be posed to the judge?
It is possible to pass a note to the judge, yes. My assumption was that
neither side actually knew, for certain, and wouldn't have been able to
supply the information in time.
Mark
In the past (or was it in America?) I have heard of Judge and jury going to visit the crime scene. Does this ever happen in reality?
On 06/12/2025 14:46, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/12/2025 13:19, The Todal wrote:
If you had been a different juror in a different jury room and your
experience had been that several people were easily swayed by more
dominant jurors, and that people misinterpreted the directions of the
judge, and that several jurors were in such a hurry to get home that
they simply voted with the majority each time, then you would not be
permitted to reveal your concerns to the press or the public unless
you were willing to risk going to prison.
You would also have to be the sole dissenter or with a maximum of just
one other of similar mind, overruled by at least 10 of the appointed
jury.
Are you saying that your powers of persuasion in the jury room,
especially when you think you're in the right and have some sort of
legal background, would be inadequate to change that even to get to
the position where the jury would be hung, ie that you couldn't get
three round to your way of thinking?
Are you saying that a juror who happens to be a lawyer or a judge is entitled to say to his fellow jurors that his training and expertise qualifies him to better assess guilt or innocence?
I think you know that would be Very Wrong. But if it happened, it could
be very persuasive and nobody outside the jury room would ever know.
On 06/12/2025 14:37, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/12/2025 13:13, The Todal wrote:
On 06/12/2025 09:01, Norman Wells wrote:
You can bring your own experiences of course into the jury room.
And there's a major flaw.
My experience might be... that black men tend to be threatening and
violent, and gang members, and drug dealers, and always abandon their
women folk.
That homosexuals prey upon children.-a That women regularly make up
accusations of rape because a friend of a friend had that experience
at university.
Etc.
No doubt counterbalanced in the jury room by the life experiences
of... well, other Daily Mail readers.
There is, admittedly, a chance that all twelve randomly selected
members of a particular jury are all bigots with no sense of civic
responsibility who all think exactly the same way and are prepared to
ignore all the evidence presented in court in coming to their verdict.
I would suggest, however, that the chance of that in UK society as it
is is infinitesimally small.
Your experience alone would be wholly insufficient.-a It would have to
be shared by at least 9 others out of the remaining 11 to return a
verdict your way.
If it is, however, who is to say the decision would then be wrong?-a It
is then just jury nullification, the possibility of which many hold
dear as a protection against laws that society regards as totally
unreasonable.
You believe that a jury of 12 people is likely to have sufficient well- intentioned, reasonable jurors who between them can be relied upon to
weigh up the evidence and give a true verdict.
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know
that Jesus watches over me"?
Can you define what is reasonable doubt?
Mr Justice Sweeney said: "A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is
reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law doesn't allow
me to help you with beyond the written directions that I have already given."
On 6 Dec 2025 at 14:39:56 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 00:00:35 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 05/12/2025 23:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
In the end, I didn't, for the fairly simple reason that it was dark by the >>>> time I got home, and I didn't think a trip to the other side of the city >>>> would be worth it if the curtains on the house were closed. But the fact >>>> that neither the defence nor the prosecution had bothered to verify this >>>> information and present it as evidence really annoyed me. It significantly >>>> reduced my opinion of the legal profession.
Is there a mechanism for asking for clarification of the 'facts'? I
thought questions could be posed to the judge?
It is possible to pass a note to the judge, yes. My assumption was that
neither side actually knew, for certain, and wouldn't have been able to
supply the information in time.
Mark
In the past (or was it in America?) I have heard of Judge and jury going to visit the crime scene. Does this ever happen in reality?
On 06/12/2025 02:44 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-12-06, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/12/2025 01:19 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 05/12/2025 23:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 11:10:10 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Still, all's well, the system is a time-honoured one and by keeping the >>>>>> deliberations in the jury room strictly confidential nobody need ever >>>>>> know that injustice has been done. And I'm sure we have people on usenet >>>>>> who will assure us that they themselves were on a jury and it was
brilliant and every argument was carefully weighed and considered. Easy >>>>>> for them to say, when they aren't actually lawyers.
I've been on a jury, and it was a very rewarding experience, and every >>>>> argument was carefully weighed and considered. And none of us were
lawyers.
But that didn't matter, because we weren't being asked to make decisions >>>>> about the law. We were asked to make decisions about the facts. In the >>>>> first
trial I served on, we had to decide whether a young lad had, in the
course
of a night out clubbing, kicked and stamped on another reveller who
got into
a dispute with his group. Based on the CCTV footage, and the witness >>>>> statements, we unanimously concluded that he hadn't. In the second, we >>>>> had
to decide whether a man had done various actions, including, inter alia, >>>>> sticking his fingers down the knickers of his stepdaughter and
touching her
genitals, and rubbing his exposed and erect penis against her. Based >>>>> on the
testimony of both the defendant and the complainant, we concluded, by a >>>>> majority of at least 10 to 2, that he had.
In neither of those cases did we have to consider the law. We didn't >>>>> have to
decide whether the young lad had committed assault, or the stepfather had >>>>> committed sexual assault. The definitions of those offences were
irrelevant
to our discussions. All we had to do was decide whether the actions
described by the prosecution took place or not.
The argument that juries are liable to get it wrong because they are not >>>>> legally trained is, I think, based on a misconception of their role. It >>>>> wasn't our job to decide whether kicking someone constitutes assault, or >>>>> whether groping someone constitutes sexual assault. That's a legal
definition, and a matter for the judge and the lawyers. Our role was >>>>> simply
to decide whether the kicking and groping had, or had not, taken place as >>>>> described by the prosecution.
I do think it's regrettable that the jury room is so opaque. I don't >>>>> think
it's necessary for juries to be required to explain their decision-
making.
And I do think that it's right that the discussions which take place >>>>> in the
jury room are not a matter of public record. But I also think that jurors >>>>> should be permitted to disclose their discussions to properly authorised >>>>> researchers under suitable conditions of confidentiality. I think that >>>>> doing
so would be likely to increase, rather than reduce, public and legal >>>>> confidence in the jury system.
I can't, and won't, disclose what went on in the jury room in either of >>>>> those cases. My understanding of the Juries Act 1974 section 20D is
that I
can't even tell you how my vote was cast in the jury room (although in >>>>> one
case it's easily inferrable from the verdict, and in the other it's a >>>>> reasonable assumption from the verdict). But I will say that in both >>>>> trials,
despite telling myself that I should not, I couldn't avoid making an >>>>> initial
presumption based solely on the wording on the charge sheet, undoubtedly >>>>> influenced by my own preconceptions. And in both cases, the vote I
eventually cast in the jury room was different to my initial presumption, >>>>> having been persuaded to change my mind by the witness testimony and the >>>>> legal advocacy.
If you had been a different juror in a different jury room and your
experience had been that several people were easily swayed by more
dominant jurors, and that people misinterpreted the directions of the
judge, and that several jurors were in such a hurry to get home that
they simply voted with the majority each time, then you would not be
permitted to reveal your concerns to the press or the public unless you >>>> were willing to risk going to prison.
Anyway, for an example of a really stupid jury (or maybe an overthinking >>>> or pedantic or neurodivergent jury), look at the Vicky Pryce case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
The gist of that seems (to me) that the jury simply didn't want to
convict Pryce of conspiracy to pervert the court of justice despite the
obvious evidence. None of us here have any way of knowing the true
position, but it seems to me that there must be a LOT of "penalty points >>> swapping" being done by spouses or partners. I even remember an episode
of "Lead Balloon" which featured it as a comedy element without
examining or commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it.
They didn't "not want to", but she was using the "marital coercion"
defence, a stupid and anachronistic rule that only still existed by
accident. They were trying in vain to make sense out of a rule that
was simply nonsensical in the modern world.
Fortunately the rule was finally abolished a year later.
In a world which has seen women acquitted of murder (after deliberately killing allegedly abusive spouses or partners), one has to wonder in
which the direction of right-on thought is moving these days.
It's OK to kill a man while he is sleeping as long as he is *said* to
have been abusive when awake, but not alright to cower in fear enough to accept his punishment for breaking traffic laws.
It's a funny old world, isn't it?
On 06/12/2025 04:23 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Dec 2025 at 14:39:56 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 00:00:35 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 05/12/2025 23:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
In the end, I didn't, for the fairly simple reason that it was dark >>>>> by the
time I got home, and I didn't think a trip to the other side of the >>>>> city
would be worth it if the curtains on the house were closed. But the >>>>> fact
that neither the defence nor the prosecution had bothered to verify >>>>> this
information and present it as evidence really annoyed me. It
significantly
reduced my opinion of the legal profession.
Is there a mechanism for asking for clarification of the 'facts'? I
thought questions could be posed to the judge?
It is possible to pass a note to the judge, yes. My assumption was that
neither side actually knew, for certain, and wouldn't have been able to
supply the information in time.
Mark
In the past (or was it in America?) I have heard of Judge and jury
going to
visit the crime scene. Does this ever happen in reality?
I am sure I have read reports of it happening in England or Wales.
On 06/12/2025 14:49, The Todal wrote:
On 06/12/2025 14:37, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/12/2025 13:13, The Todal wrote:
On 06/12/2025 09:01, Norman Wells wrote:
You can bring your own experiences of course into the jury room.
And there's a major flaw.
My experience might be... that black men tend to be threatening and
violent, and gang members, and drug dealers, and always abandon
their women folk.
That homosexuals prey upon children.-a That women regularly make up
accusations of rape because a friend of a friend had that experience
at university.
Etc.
No doubt counterbalanced in the jury room by the life experiences
of... well, other Daily Mail readers.
There is, admittedly, a chance that all twelve randomly selected
members of a particular jury are all bigots with no sense of civic
responsibility who all think exactly the same way and are prepared to
ignore all the evidence presented in court in coming to their verdict.
I would suggest, however, that the chance of that in UK society as it
is is infinitesimally small.
Your experience alone would be wholly insufficient.-a It would have to
be shared by at least 9 others out of the remaining 11 to return a
verdict your way.
If it is, however, who is to say the decision would then be wrong?
It is then just jury nullification, the possibility of which many
hold dear as a protection against laws that society regards as
totally unreasonable.
You believe that a jury of 12 people is likely to have sufficient
well- intentioned, reasonable jurors who between them can be relied
upon to weigh up the evidence and give a true verdict.
Yes.-a It's why we have as many as twelve and demand if at all possible
that they be unanimous.-a Which they are in a possibly surprising 85% of cases.
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if
you aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I
know that Jesus watches over me"?
Can you define what is reasonable doubt?
Mr Justice Sweeney said: "A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is
reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law doesn't
allow me to help you with beyond the written directions that I have
already given."
Because of the supposed difficulty in understanding 'beyond reasonable doubt', members of the jury are now patronisingly instructed that, in
order to convict, they must be 'sure' of the accused's guilt.-a You've
said no-one can be 'sure' but juries still convict so they at least are perfectly capable of understanding what it means out in the real world
away from legal pedants.-a Usually unanimously.
On 06/12/2025 17:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/12/2025 14:49, The Todal wrote:
On 06/12/2025 14:37, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/12/2025 13:13, The Todal wrote:
On 06/12/2025 09:01, Norman Wells wrote:
You can bring your own experiences of course into the jury room.
And there's a major flaw.
My experience might be... that black men tend to be threatening and
violent, and gang members, and drug dealers, and always abandon
their women folk.
That homosexuals prey upon children. That women regularly make up
accusations of rape because a friend of a friend had that experience >>>>> at university.
Etc.
No doubt counterbalanced in the jury room by the life experiences
of... well, other Daily Mail readers.
There is, admittedly, a chance that all twelve randomly selected
members of a particular jury are all bigots with no sense of civic
responsibility who all think exactly the same way and are prepared to
ignore all the evidence presented in court in coming to their verdict. >>>>
I would suggest, however, that the chance of that in UK society as it
is is infinitesimally small.
Your experience alone would be wholly insufficient. It would have to
be shared by at least 9 others out of the remaining 11 to return a
verdict your way.
If it is, however, who is to say the decision would then be wrong?
It is then just jury nullification, the possibility of which many
hold dear as a protection against laws that society regards as
totally unreasonable.
You believe that a jury of 12 people is likely to have sufficient
well- intentioned, reasonable jurors who between them can be relied
upon to weigh up the evidence and give a true verdict.
Yes. It's why we have as many as twelve and demand if at all possible
that they be unanimous. Which they are in a possibly surprising 85% of
cases.
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if
you aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I
know that Jesus watches over me"?
Can you define what is reasonable doubt?
Mr Justice Sweeney said: "A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is
reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law doesn't
allow me to help you with beyond the written directions that I have
already given."
Because of the supposed difficulty in understanding 'beyond reasonable
doubt', members of the jury are now patronisingly instructed that, in
order to convict, they must be 'sure' of the accused's guilt. You've
said no-one can be 'sure' but juries still convict so they at least are
perfectly capable of understanding what it means out in the real world
away from legal pedants. Usually unanimously.
I think you are wrong. I think that in assessing whether their "doubt"
is "reasonable" or whether, in the alternative formulation they are
"sure" of the defendant's guilt, they simply use other jurors as their sounding board and if other jurors say they are convinced, any juror who
is doubtful will tell himself that his doubt is not reasonable and is
merely a sign of weak indecisiveness. For example, if the jury has to consider whether a photograph of a child is "indecent", where "indecent"
is to be judged by the normal standards of propriety, any juror would be
very uncomfortable saying that "indecent" actually means nothing to them
and the defendant should be acquitted.
On 06/12/2025 17:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/12/2025 14:49, The Todal wrote:
On 06/12/2025 14:37, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/12/2025 13:13, The Todal wrote:
On 06/12/2025 09:01, Norman Wells wrote:
You can bring your own experiences of course into the jury room.
And there's a major flaw.
My experience might be... that black men tend to be threatening and >>>>> violent, and gang members, and drug dealers, and always abandon
their women folk.
That homosexuals prey upon children.-a That women regularly make up >>>>> accusations of rape because a friend of a friend had that
experience at university.
Etc.
No doubt counterbalanced in the jury room by the life experiences
of... well, other Daily Mail readers.
There is, admittedly, a chance that all twelve randomly selected
members of a particular jury are all bigots with no sense of civic
responsibility who all think exactly the same way and are prepared
to ignore all the evidence presented in court in coming to their
verdict.
I would suggest, however, that the chance of that in UK society as
it is is infinitesimally small.
Your experience alone would be wholly insufficient.-a It would have
to be shared by at least 9 others out of the remaining 11 to return
a verdict your way.
If it is, however, who is to say the decision would then be wrong?
It is then just jury nullification, the possibility of which many
hold dear as a protection against laws that society regards as
totally unreasonable.
You believe that a jury of 12 people is likely to have sufficient
well- intentioned, reasonable jurors who between them can be relied
upon to weigh up the evidence and give a true verdict.
Yes.-a It's why we have as many as twelve and demand if at all possible
that they be unanimous.-a Which they are in a possibly surprising 85%
of cases.
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if
you aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I
know that Jesus watches over me"?
Can you define what is reasonable doubt?
Mr Justice Sweeney said: "A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is
reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law doesn't
allow me to help you with beyond the written directions that I have
already given."
Because of the supposed difficulty in understanding 'beyond reasonable
doubt', members of the jury are now patronisingly instructed that, in
order to convict, they must be 'sure' of the accused's guilt.-a You've
said no-one can be 'sure' but juries still convict so they at least
are perfectly capable of understanding what it means out in the real
world away from legal pedants.-a Usually unanimously.
I think you are wrong. I think that in assessing whether their "doubt"
is "reasonable" or whether, in the alternative formulation they are
"sure" of the defendant's guilt, they simply use other jurors as their sounding board and if other jurors say they are convinced, any juror who
is doubtful will tell himself that his doubt is not reasonable and is
merely a sign of weak indecisiveness.
For example, if the jury has to
consider whether a photograph of a child is "indecent", where "indecent"
is to be judged by the normal standards of propriety, any juror would be very uncomfortable saying that "indecent" actually means nothing to them
and the defendant should be acquitted.
On 6 Dec 2025 at 17:25:56 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/12/2025 02:44 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-12-06, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/12/2025 01:19 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 05/12/2025 23:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 11:10:10 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Still, all's well, the system is a time-honoured one and by keeping the >>>>>>> deliberations in the jury room strictly confidential nobody need ever >>>>>>> know that injustice has been done. And I'm sure we have people on usenet
who will assure us that they themselves were on a jury and it was >>>>>>> brilliant and every argument was carefully weighed and considered. Easy >>>>>>> for them to say, when they aren't actually lawyers.
I've been on a jury, and it was a very rewarding experience, and every >>>>>> argument was carefully weighed and considered. And none of us were >>>>>> lawyers.
But that didn't matter, because we weren't being asked to make decisions >>>>>> about the law. We were asked to make decisions about the facts. In the >>>>>> first
trial I served on, we had to decide whether a young lad had, in the >>>>>> course
of a night out clubbing, kicked and stamped on another reveller who >>>>>> got into
a dispute with his group. Based on the CCTV footage, and the witness >>>>>> statements, we unanimously concluded that he hadn't. In the second, we >>>>>> had
to decide whether a man had done various actions, including, inter alia, >>>>>> sticking his fingers down the knickers of his stepdaughter and
touching her
genitals, and rubbing his exposed and erect penis against her. Based >>>>>> on the
testimony of both the defendant and the complainant, we concluded, by a >>>>>> majority of at least 10 to 2, that he had.
In neither of those cases did we have to consider the law. We didn't >>>>>> have to
decide whether the young lad had committed assault, or the stepfather had
committed sexual assault. The definitions of those offences were
irrelevant
to our discussions. All we had to do was decide whether the actions >>>>>> described by the prosecution took place or not.
The argument that juries are liable to get it wrong because they are not >>>>>> legally trained is, I think, based on a misconception of their role. It >>>>>> wasn't our job to decide whether kicking someone constitutes assault, or >>>>>> whether groping someone constitutes sexual assault. That's a legal >>>>>> definition, and a matter for the judge and the lawyers. Our role was >>>>>> simply
to decide whether the kicking and groping had, or had not, taken place as
described by the prosecution.
I do think it's regrettable that the jury room is so opaque. I don't >>>>>> think
it's necessary for juries to be required to explain their decision- >>>>>> making.
And I do think that it's right that the discussions which take place >>>>>> in the
jury room are not a matter of public record. But I also think that jurors
should be permitted to disclose their discussions to properly authorised >>>>>> researchers under suitable conditions of confidentiality. I think that >>>>>> doing
so would be likely to increase, rather than reduce, public and legal >>>>>> confidence in the jury system.
I can't, and won't, disclose what went on in the jury room in either of >>>>>> those cases. My understanding of the Juries Act 1974 section 20D is >>>>>> that I
can't even tell you how my vote was cast in the jury room (although in >>>>>> one
case it's easily inferrable from the verdict, and in the other it's a >>>>>> reasonable assumption from the verdict). But I will say that in both >>>>>> trials,
despite telling myself that I should not, I couldn't avoid making an >>>>>> initial
presumption based solely on the wording on the charge sheet, undoubtedly >>>>>> influenced by my own preconceptions. And in both cases, the vote I >>>>>> eventually cast in the jury room was different to my initial presumption,
having been persuaded to change my mind by the witness testimony and the >>>>>> legal advocacy.
If you had been a different juror in a different jury room and your
experience had been that several people were easily swayed by more
dominant jurors, and that people misinterpreted the directions of the >>>>> judge, and that several jurors were in such a hurry to get home that >>>>> they simply voted with the majority each time, then you would not be >>>>> permitted to reveal your concerns to the press or the public unless you >>>>> were willing to risk going to prison.
Anyway, for an example of a really stupid jury (or maybe an overthinking >>>>> or pedantic or neurodivergent jury), look at the Vicky Pryce case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
The gist of that seems (to me) that the jury simply didn't want to
convict Pryce of conspiracy to pervert the court of justice despite the >>>> obvious evidence. None of us here have any way of knowing the true
position, but it seems to me that there must be a LOT of "penalty points >>>> swapping" being done by spouses or partners. I even remember an episode >>>> of "Lead Balloon" which featured it as a comedy element without
examining or commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it.
They didn't "not want to", but she was using the "marital coercion"
defence, a stupid and anachronistic rule that only still existed by
accident. They were trying in vain to make sense out of a rule that
was simply nonsensical in the modern world.
Fortunately the rule was finally abolished a year later.
In a world which has seen women acquitted of murder (after deliberately
killing allegedly abusive spouses or partners), one has to wonder in
which the direction of right-on thought is moving these days.
It's OK to kill a man while he is sleeping as long as he is *said* to
have been abusive when awake, but not alright to cower in fear enough to
accept his punishment for breaking traffic laws.
It's a funny old world, isn't it?
Those things are not even slightly inconsistent. Marital coercion was based on
no objective evidence of coercion apart from the "natural" dominance of a husband. If Pryce had produced any *evidence* of coercive control or violence from her husband she would quite possibly have been acquitted.
And it is worth pointing out that acquittals for murder of wives killing abusive husbands are far from the norm. And they can still suffer very consideral punishment even if only found guilty of manslaughter.
On 06/12/2025 06:45 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 6 Dec 2025 at 17:25:56 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/12/2025 02:44 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-12-06, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/12/2025 01:19 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 05/12/2025 23:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 11:10:10 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
Still, all's well, the system is a time-honoured one and by keeping the
deliberations in the jury room strictly confidential nobody need ever >>>>>>>> know that injustice has been done. And I'm sure we have people on usenet
who will assure us that they themselves were on a jury and it was >>>>>>>> brilliant and every argument was carefully weighed and considered. Easy
for them to say, when they aren't actually lawyers.
I've been on a jury, and it was a very rewarding experience, and every >>>>>>> argument was carefully weighed and considered. And none of us were >>>>>>> lawyers.
But that didn't matter, because we weren't being asked to make decisions
about the law. We were asked to make decisions about the facts. In the >>>>>>> first
trial I served on, we had to decide whether a young lad had, in the >>>>>>> course
of a night out clubbing, kicked and stamped on another reveller who >>>>>>> got into
a dispute with his group. Based on the CCTV footage, and the witness >>>>>>> statements, we unanimously concluded that he hadn't. In the second, we >>>>>>> had
to decide whether a man had done various actions, including, inter alia,
sticking his fingers down the knickers of his stepdaughter and
touching her
genitals, and rubbing his exposed and erect penis against her. Based >>>>>>> on the
testimony of both the defendant and the complainant, we concluded, by a >>>>>>> majority of at least 10 to 2, that he had.
In neither of those cases did we have to consider the law. We didn't >>>>>>> have to
decide whether the young lad had committed assault, or the stepfather had
committed sexual assault. The definitions of those offences were >>>>>>> irrelevant
to our discussions. All we had to do was decide whether the actions >>>>>>> described by the prosecution took place or not.
The argument that juries are liable to get it wrong because they are not
legally trained is, I think, based on a misconception of their role. It >>>>>>> wasn't our job to decide whether kicking someone constitutes assault, or
whether groping someone constitutes sexual assault. That's a legal >>>>>>> definition, and a matter for the judge and the lawyers. Our role was >>>>>>> simply
to decide whether the kicking and groping had, or had not, taken place as
described by the prosecution.
I do think it's regrettable that the jury room is so opaque. I don't >>>>>>> think
it's necessary for juries to be required to explain their decision- >>>>>>> making.
And I do think that it's right that the discussions which take place >>>>>>> in the
jury room are not a matter of public record. But I also think that jurors
should be permitted to disclose their discussions to properly authorised
researchers under suitable conditions of confidentiality. I think that >>>>>>> doing
so would be likely to increase, rather than reduce, public and legal >>>>>>> confidence in the jury system.
I can't, and won't, disclose what went on in the jury room in either of >>>>>>> those cases. My understanding of the Juries Act 1974 section 20D is >>>>>>> that I
can't even tell you how my vote was cast in the jury room (although in >>>>>>> one
case it's easily inferrable from the verdict, and in the other it's a >>>>>>> reasonable assumption from the verdict). But I will say that in both >>>>>>> trials,
despite telling myself that I should not, I couldn't avoid making an >>>>>>> initial
presumption based solely on the wording on the charge sheet, undoubtedly
influenced by my own preconceptions. And in both cases, the vote I >>>>>>> eventually cast in the jury room was different to my initial presumption,
having been persuaded to change my mind by the witness testimony and the
legal advocacy.
If you had been a different juror in a different jury room and your >>>>>> experience had been that several people were easily swayed by more >>>>>> dominant jurors, and that people misinterpreted the directions of the >>>>>> judge, and that several jurors were in such a hurry to get home that >>>>>> they simply voted with the majority each time, then you would not be >>>>>> permitted to reveal your concerns to the press or the public unless you >>>>>> were willing to risk going to prison.
Anyway, for an example of a really stupid jury (or maybe an overthinking >>>>>> or pedantic or neurodivergent jury), look at the Vicky Pryce case. >>>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
The gist of that seems (to me) that the jury simply didn't want to
convict Pryce of conspiracy to pervert the court of justice despite the >>>>> obvious evidence. None of us here have any way of knowing the true
position, but it seems to me that there must be a LOT of "penalty points >>>>> swapping" being done by spouses or partners. I even remember an episode >>>>> of "Lead Balloon" which featured it as a comedy element without
examining or commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it.
They didn't "not want to", but she was using the "marital coercion"
defence, a stupid and anachronistic rule that only still existed by
accident. They were trying in vain to make sense out of a rule that
was simply nonsensical in the modern world.
Fortunately the rule was finally abolished a year later.
In a world which has seen women acquitted of murder (after deliberately
killing allegedly abusive spouses or partners), one has to wonder in
which the direction of right-on thought is moving these days.
It's OK to kill a man while he is sleeping as long as he is *said* to
have been abusive when awake, but not alright to cower in fear enough to >>> accept his punishment for breaking traffic laws.
It's a funny old world, isn't it?
Those things are not even slightly inconsistent. Marital coercion was based on
no objective evidence of coercion apart from the "natural" dominance of a
husband. If Pryce had produced any *evidence* of coercive control or violence
from her husband she would quite possibly have been acquitted.
She must have either given testimony or provided other evidence to that effect. Had she not, that defence could not have been posited.
And it is worth pointing out that acquittals for murder of wives killing
abusive husbands are far from the norm. And they can still suffer very
consideral punishment even if only found guilty of manslaughter.
Isn't that awful?
On 7 Dec 2025 at 00:07:46 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
The gist of that seems (to me) that the jury simply didn't want to >>>>>> convict Pryce of conspiracy to pervert the court of justice despite the >>>>>> obvious evidence. None of us here have any way of knowing the true >>>>>> position, but it seems to me that there must be a LOT of "penalty points >>>>>> swapping" being done by spouses or partners. I even remember an episode >>>>>> of "Lead Balloon" which featured it as a comedy element without
examining or commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it.
They didn't "not want to", but she was using the "marital coercion"
defence, a stupid and anachronistic rule that only still existed by
accident. They were trying in vain to make sense out of a rule that
was simply nonsensical in the modern world.
Fortunately the rule was finally abolished a year later.
In a world which has seen women acquitted of murder (after deliberately >>>> killing allegedly abusive spouses or partners), one has to wonder in
which the direction of right-on thought is moving these days.
It's OK to kill a man while he is sleeping as long as he is *said* to
have been abusive when awake, but not alright to cower in fear enough to >>>> accept his punishment for breaking traffic laws.
It's a funny old world, isn't it?
Those things are not even slightly inconsistent. Marital coercion was based on
no objective evidence of coercion apart from the "natural" dominance of a >>> husband. If Pryce had produced any *evidence* of coercive control or violence
from her husband she would quite possibly have been acquitted.
She must have either given testimony or provided other evidence to that
effect. Had she not, that defence could not have been posited.
She gave evidence that he told her to do it, and as a respectful and obedient wife her will, and mens rea to commit a crime, was totally overpowered by her marriage vows. Not wholly convincing, I would have thought.
Coercion does not have to be exercised by violence or its threat.
And it is worth pointing out that acquittals for murder of wives killing >>> abusive husbands are far from the norm. And they can still suffer very
consideral punishment even if only found guilty of manslaughter.
Isn't that awful?
It is comparable to men killing wives in the heat of the moment because they have 'provoked' them by doing something annoying. Whether it is reasonable in either case depends on the facts of the case.
On 07/12/2025 12:12 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 00:07:46 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
I am sure that you will agree that neither of us can be sure of it.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
The gist of that seems (to me) that the jury simply didn't want to >>>>>>> convict Pryce of conspiracy to pervert the court of justice despite the >>>>>>> obvious evidence. None of us here have any way of knowing the true >>>>>>> position, but it seems to me that there must be a LOT of "penalty points
swapping" being done by spouses or partners. I even remember an episode >>>>>>> of "Lead Balloon" which featured it as a comedy element without
examining or commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it.
They didn't "not want to", but she was using the "marital coercion" >>>>>> defence, a stupid and anachronistic rule that only still existed by >>>>>> accident. They were trying in vain to make sense out of a rule that >>>>>> was simply nonsensical in the modern world.
Fortunately the rule was finally abolished a year later.
In a world which has seen women acquitted of murder (after deliberately >>>>> killing allegedly abusive spouses or partners), one has to wonder in >>>>> which the direction of right-on thought is moving these days.
It's OK to kill a man while he is sleeping as long as he is *said* to >>>>> have been abusive when awake, but not alright to cower in fear enough to >>>>> accept his punishment for breaking traffic laws.
It's a funny old world, isn't it?
Those things are not even slightly inconsistent. Marital coercion was based on
no objective evidence of coercion apart from the "natural" dominance of a >>>> husband. If Pryce had produced any *evidence* of coercive control or violence
from her husband she would quite possibly have been acquitted.
She must have either given testimony or provided other evidence to that
effect. Had she not, that defence could not have been posited.
She gave evidence that he told her to do it, and as a respectful and obedient
wife her will, and mens rea to commit a crime, was totally overpowered by her
marriage vows. Not wholly convincing, I would have thought.
Coercion does not have to be exercised by violence or its threat.
And it is worth pointing out that acquittals for murder of wives killing >>>> abusive husbands are far from the norm. And they can still suffer very >>>> consideral punishment even if only found guilty of manslaughter.
Isn't that awful?
It is comparable to men killing wives in the heat of the moment because they >> have 'provoked' them by doing something annoying. Whether it is reasonable in
either case depends on the facts of the case.
It is never reasonable to kill another human (with the obvious
exceptions of killings in the course of credible self-defence against an imminent threat, warfare and lawful execution, just to get those out of
the way).
Would anyone seriously expect someone guilty of manslaughter of a spouse
- or of anyone else - not to be punished?
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you >aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know
that Jesus watches over me"?
On 7 Dec 2025 at 13:15:43 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2025 12:12 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 00:07:46 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
I am sure that you will agree that neither of us can be sure of it.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
The gist of that seems (to me) that the jury simply didn't want to >>>>>>>> convict Pryce of conspiracy to pervert the court of justice despite the
obvious evidence. None of us here have any way of knowing the true >>>>>>>> position, but it seems to me that there must be a LOT of "penalty points
swapping" being done by spouses or partners. I even remember an episode
of "Lead Balloon" which featured it as a comedy element without >>>>>>>> examining or commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it.
They didn't "not want to", but she was using the "marital coercion" >>>>>>> defence, a stupid and anachronistic rule that only still existed by >>>>>>> accident. They were trying in vain to make sense out of a rule that >>>>>>> was simply nonsensical in the modern world.
Fortunately the rule was finally abolished a year later.
In a world which has seen women acquitted of murder (after deliberately >>>>>> killing allegedly abusive spouses or partners), one has to wonder in >>>>>> which the direction of right-on thought is moving these days.
It's OK to kill a man while he is sleeping as long as he is *said* to >>>>>> have been abusive when awake, but not alright to cower in fear enough to >>>>>> accept his punishment for breaking traffic laws.
It's a funny old world, isn't it?
Those things are not even slightly inconsistent. Marital coercion was based on
no objective evidence of coercion apart from the "natural" dominance of a >>>>> husband. If Pryce had produced any *evidence* of coercive control or violence
from her husband she would quite possibly have been acquitted.
She must have either given testimony or provided other evidence to that >>>> effect. Had she not, that defence could not have been posited.
She gave evidence that he told her to do it, and as a respectful and obedient
wife her will, and mens rea to commit a crime, was totally overpowered by her
marriage vows. Not wholly convincing, I would have thought.
Coercion does not have to be exercised by violence or its threat.
And it is worth pointing out that acquittals for murder of wives killing >>>>> abusive husbands are far from the norm. And they can still suffer very >>>>> consideral punishment even if only found guilty of manslaughter.
Isn't that awful?
It is comparable to men killing wives in the heat of the moment because they
have 'provoked' them by doing something annoying. Whether it is reasonable in
either case depends on the facts of the case.
It is never reasonable to kill another human (with the obvious
exceptions of killings in the course of credible self-defence against an
imminent threat, warfare and lawful execution, just to get those out of
the way).
Would anyone seriously expect someone guilty of manslaughter of a spouse
- or of anyone else - not to be punished?
Well no. You seem to have gone off at a bizarre tangent. I thought we were talking about people being convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. The question of not punishing them seems to have arisen only in your mind.
On 07/12/2025 01:30 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 13:15:43 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2025 12:12 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 00:07:46 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
I am sure that you will agree that neither of us can be sure of it.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
The gist of that seems (to me) that the jury simply didn't want to >>>>>>>>> convict Pryce of conspiracy to pervert the court of justice despite the
obvious evidence. None of us here have any way of knowing the true >>>>>>>>> position, but it seems to me that there must be a LOT of "penalty points
swapping" being done by spouses or partners. I even remember an episode
of "Lead Balloon" which featured it as a comedy element without >>>>>>>>> examining or commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it.
They didn't "not want to", but she was using the "marital coercion" >>>>>>>> defence, a stupid and anachronistic rule that only still existed by >>>>>>>> accident. They were trying in vain to make sense out of a rule that >>>>>>>> was simply nonsensical in the modern world.
Fortunately the rule was finally abolished a year later.
In a world which has seen women acquitted of murder (after deliberately >>>>>>> killing allegedly abusive spouses or partners), one has to wonder in >>>>>>> which the direction of right-on thought is moving these days.
It's OK to kill a man while he is sleeping as long as he is *said* to >>>>>>> have been abusive when awake, but not alright to cower in fear enough to
accept his punishment for breaking traffic laws.
It's a funny old world, isn't it?
Those things are not even slightly inconsistent. Marital coercion was based on
no objective evidence of coercion apart from the "natural" dominance of a
husband. If Pryce had produced any *evidence* of coercive control or violence
from her husband she would quite possibly have been acquitted.
She must have either given testimony or provided other evidence to that >>>>> effect. Had she not, that defence could not have been posited.
She gave evidence that he told her to do it, and as a respectful and obedient
wife her will, and mens rea to commit a crime, was totally overpowered by her
marriage vows. Not wholly convincing, I would have thought.
Coercion does not have to be exercised by violence or its threat.
And it is worth pointing out that acquittals for murder of wives killing >>>>>> abusive husbands are far from the norm. And they can still suffer very >>>>>> consideral punishment even if only found guilty of manslaughter.
Isn't that awful?
It is comparable to men killing wives in the heat of the moment because they
have 'provoked' them by doing something annoying. Whether it is reasonable in
either case depends on the facts of the case.
It is never reasonable to kill another human (with the obvious
exceptions of killings in the course of credible self-defence against an >>> imminent threat, warfare and lawful execution, just to get those out of
the way).
Would anyone seriously expect someone guilty of manslaughter of a spouse >>> - or of anyone else - not to be punished?
Well no. You seem to have gone off at a bizarre tangent. I thought we were >> talking about people being convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. The >> question of not punishing them seems to have arisen only in your mind.
So what were you getting at when you wrote:
[VERBATIM:]
"...they can still suffer very consideral punishment even if only found guilty of manslaughter"?
It reads very much as a criticism of the principle of punishing those
found guilty of the crime of manslaughter.
[I loved the use the word "only", BTW! ;-)]--
On 06/12/2025 19:02, The Todal wrote:
On 06/12/2025 17:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/12/2025 14:49, The Todal wrote:
On 06/12/2025 14:37, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/12/2025 13:13, The Todal wrote:
On 06/12/2025 09:01, Norman Wells wrote:
You can bring your own experiences of course into the jury room. >>>>>>And there's a major flaw.
My experience might be... that black men tend to be threatening
and violent, and gang members, and drug dealers, and always
abandon their women folk.
That homosexuals prey upon children.-a That women regularly make up >>>>>> accusations of rape because a friend of a friend had that
experience at university.
Etc.
No doubt counterbalanced in the jury room by the life experiences >>>>>> of... well, other Daily Mail readers.
There is, admittedly, a chance that all twelve randomly selected
members of a particular jury are all bigots with no sense of civic
responsibility who all think exactly the same way and are prepared
to ignore all the evidence presented in court in coming to their
verdict.
I would suggest, however, that the chance of that in UK society as
it is is infinitesimally small.
Your experience alone would be wholly insufficient.-a It would have >>>>> to be shared by at least 9 others out of the remaining 11 to return >>>>> a verdict your way.
If it is, however, who is to say the decision would then be wrong?
It is then just jury nullification, the possibility of which many
hold dear as a protection against laws that society regards as
totally unreasonable.
You believe that a jury of 12 people is likely to have sufficient
well- intentioned, reasonable jurors who between them can be relied
upon to weigh up the evidence and give a true verdict.
Yes.-a It's why we have as many as twelve and demand if at all
possible that they be unanimous.-a Which they are in a possibly
surprising 85% of cases.
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if
you aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I
know that Jesus watches over me"?
Can you define what is reasonable doubt?
Mr Justice Sweeney said: "A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is
reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law doesn't
allow me to help you with beyond the written directions that I have
already given."
Because of the supposed difficulty in understanding 'beyond
reasonable doubt', members of the jury are now patronisingly
instructed that, in order to convict, they must be 'sure' of the
accused's guilt.-a You've said no-one can be 'sure' but juries still
convict so they at least are perfectly capable of understanding what
it means out in the real world away from legal pedants.-a Usually
unanimously.
I think you are wrong. I think that in assessing whether their "doubt"
is "reasonable" or whether, in the alternative formulation they are
"sure" of the defendant's guilt, they simply use other jurors as their
sounding board and if other jurors say they are convinced, any juror
who is doubtful will tell himself that his doubt is not reasonable and
is merely a sign of weak indecisiveness.
That's what juries do.-a They discuss, influence and persuade to a
consensus view.-a It's perfectly normal.
For example, if the jury has to consider whether a photograph of a
child is "indecent", where "indecent" is to be judged by the normal
standards of propriety, any juror would be very uncomfortable saying
that "indecent" actually means nothing to them and the defendant
should be acquitted.
That's exactly what they did in the Lady Chatterley case.
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you
aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know
that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you
aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know
that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the >healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you >>>> aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know
that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the
healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch.
On 06/12/2025 21:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/12/2025 19:02, The Todal wrote:
For example, if the jury has to consider whether a photograph of a
child is "indecent", where "indecent" is to be judged by the normal
standards of propriety, any juror would be very uncomfortable saying
that "indecent" actually means nothing to them and the defendant
should be acquitted.
That's exactly what they did in the Lady Chatterley case.
You made that up. Firstly, the jury never gave its reasons. Secondly, it
was not asked to consider if the book was indecent or had indecent photographs in it.
Thirdly, "literary merit" is not a defence for a
defendant charged with making or possessing indecent photographs of children.
On 08/12/2025 09:46, The Todal wrote:
On 06/12/2025 21:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/12/2025 19:02, The Todal wrote:
For example, if the jury has to consider whether a photograph of a
child is "indecent", where "indecent" is to be judged by the normal
standards of propriety, any juror would be very uncomfortable saying
that "indecent" actually means nothing to them and the defendant
should be acquitted.
That's exactly what they did in the Lady Chatterley case.
You made that up. Firstly, the jury never gave its reasons. Secondly,
it was not asked to consider if the book was indecent or had indecent
photographs in it.
Not so.-a It was asked to decide whether it was 'obscene', which is
clearly even more indecent than 'indecent'.
"Prosecuting, Mervyn Griffith-Jones began by urging the jury to decide
if the book was obscene under section 2 of the Act and if so whether its literary merit provided for a 'public good' under section 4"
"Gerald Gardiner outlined the case for the defence: that the book was
not obscene under section 2 as it would not deprave or corrupt anyone,
and that due to Lawrence's status the work satisfied section 4."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd
Thirdly, "literary merit" is not a defence for a defendant charged
with making or possessing indecent photographs of children.
We were just discussing indecency and what people regard as fitting that appellation.
On 8 Dec 2025 at 11:47:41 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you >>>>> aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know >>>>> that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the
healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch.
You must admit that the idea that various gods and saints can only concentrate >on human supplications if carried out in specific geographical areas does >suggest a naive anthropomorphisation of deities more suited to mediaeval >understanding than the twentyfirst century?
But I suppose you are going to suggest that it is the state of mind of the >supplicants that is important here; they only have to think like mediaeval >peasants?
On 7 Dec 2025 at 22:52:36 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2025 01:30 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 13:15:43 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2025 12:12 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 00:07:46 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
I am sure that you will agree that neither of us can be sure of it.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
The gist of that seems (to me) that the jury simply didn't want to >>>>>>>>>> convict Pryce of conspiracy to pervert the court of justice despite the
obvious evidence. None of us here have any way of knowing the true >>>>>>>>>> position, but it seems to me that there must be a LOT of "penalty points
swapping" being done by spouses or partners. I even remember an episode
of "Lead Balloon" which featured it as a comedy element without >>>>>>>>>> examining or commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it.
They didn't "not want to", but she was using the "marital coercion" >>>>>>>>> defence, a stupid and anachronistic rule that only still existed by >>>>>>>>> accident. They were trying in vain to make sense out of a rule that >>>>>>>>> was simply nonsensical in the modern world.
Fortunately the rule was finally abolished a year later.
In a world which has seen women acquitted of murder (after deliberately
killing allegedly abusive spouses or partners), one has to wonder in >>>>>>>> which the direction of right-on thought is moving these days.
It's OK to kill a man while he is sleeping as long as he is *said* to >>>>>>>> have been abusive when awake, but not alright to cower in fear enough to
accept his punishment for breaking traffic laws.
It's a funny old world, isn't it?
Those things are not even slightly inconsistent. Marital coercion was based on
no objective evidence of coercion apart from the "natural" dominance of a
husband. If Pryce had produced any *evidence* of coercive control or violence
from her husband she would quite possibly have been acquitted.
She must have either given testimony or provided other evidence to that >>>>>> effect. Had she not, that defence could not have been posited.
She gave evidence that he told her to do it, and as a respectful and obedient
wife her will, and mens rea to commit a crime, was totally overpowered by her
marriage vows. Not wholly convincing, I would have thought.
Coercion does not have to be exercised by violence or its threat.
And it is worth pointing out that acquittals for murder of wives killing
abusive husbands are far from the norm. And they can still suffer very >>>>>>> consideral punishment even if only found guilty of manslaughter.
Isn't that awful?
It is comparable to men killing wives in the heat of the moment because they
have 'provoked' them by doing something annoying. Whether it is reasonable in
either case depends on the facts of the case.
It is never reasonable to kill another human (with the obvious
exceptions of killings in the course of credible self-defence against an >>>> imminent threat, warfare and lawful execution, just to get those out of >>>> the way).
Would anyone seriously expect someone guilty of manslaughter of a spouse >>>> - or of anyone else - not to be punished?
Well no. You seem to have gone off at a bizarre tangent. I thought we were >>> talking about people being convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. The
question of not punishing them seems to have arisen only in your mind.
So what were you getting at when you wrote:
[VERBATIM:]
"...they can still suffer very consideral punishment even if only found
guilty of manslaughter"?
It reads very much as a criticism of the principle of punishing those
found guilty of the crime of manslaughter.
It only reads that way to a raving lunatic (or possibly liar) trying to make an argument about nothing.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2[I loved the use the word "only", BTW! ;-)]
On 8 Dec 2025 at 11:47:41 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you >>>>> aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know >>>>> that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the
healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch.
You must admit that the idea that various gods and saints can only concentrate
on human supplications if carried out in specific geographical areas does suggest a naive anthropomorphisation of deities more suited to mediaeval understanding than the twentyfirst century?
But I suppose you are going to suggest that it is the state of mind of the supplicants that is important here; they only have to think like mediaeval peasants?
On 8 Dec 2025 12:03:01 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 11:47:41 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you >>>>>> aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know >>>>>> that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the
healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch.
You must admit that the idea that various gods and saints can only concentrate
on human supplications if carried out in specific geographical areas does
suggest a naive anthropomorphisation of deities more suited to mediaeval
understanding than the twentyfirst century?
As I have noted before, the confidence with which people make
pronouncements about the Catholic Church is directly related to how
little they actually know about it.
But I suppose you are going to suggest that it is the state of mind of the >> supplicants that is important here; they only have to think like mediaeval >> peasants?
I was not going to suggest anything, I was just observing Todal's
ceaseless compulsion to bring religion into topics that are not in any
way related to religion. He seems to have the rather weird idea that
there is something clever about trying to provoke religious believers.
He's not even particularly good at it.
On 08/12/2025 12:37, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/12/2025 09:46, The Todal wrote:
On 06/12/2025 21:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/12/2025 19:02, The Todal wrote:
For example, if the jury has to consider whether a photograph of a
child is "indecent", where "indecent" is to be judged by the normal >>>>> standards of propriety, any juror would be very uncomfortable
saying that "indecent" actually means nothing to them and the
defendant should be acquitted.
That's exactly what they did in the Lady Chatterley case.
You made that up. Firstly, the jury never gave its reasons. Secondly,
it was not asked to consider if the book was indecent or had indecent
photographs in it.
Not so.-a It was asked to decide whether it was 'obscene', which is
clearly even more indecent than 'indecent'.
It's a totally different word in a totally different statute. You can't
play at being a lawyer by conflating different words and different
tests, Norman.
"Prosecuting, Mervyn Griffith-Jones began by urging the jury to decide
if the book was obscene under section 2 of the Act and if so whether
its literary merit provided for a 'public good' under section 4"
"Gerald Gardiner outlined the case for the defence: that the book was
not obscene under section 2 as it would not deprave or corrupt anyone,
and that due to Lawrence's status the work satisfied section 4."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd
Thirdly, "literary merit" is not a defence for a defendant charged
with making or possessing indecent photographs of children.
We were just discussing indecency and what people regard as fitting
that appellation.
Which is why it did not advance the argument by you quoting well known phrases from the Lady Chatterley case.
For example, it isn't necessary or relevant to discuss whether a picture
of a naked child could deprave or corrupt the viewer.
On 08/12/2025 13:47, Martin Harran wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 12:03:01 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 11:47:41 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you >>>>>>> aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know >>>>>>> that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the >>>>> healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch.
You must admit that the idea that various gods and saints can only concentrate
on human supplications if carried out in specific geographical areas does >>> suggest a naive anthropomorphisation of deities more suited to mediaeval >>> understanding than the twentyfirst century?
As I have noted before, the confidence with which people make
pronouncements about the Catholic Church is directly related to how
little they actually know about it.
But I suppose you are going to suggest that it is the state of mind of the >>> supplicants that is important here; they only have to think like mediaeval >>> peasants?
I was not going to suggest anything, I was just observing Todal's
ceaseless compulsion to bring religion into topics that are not in any
way related to religion. He seems to have the rather weird idea that
there is something clever about trying to provoke religious believers.
He's not even particularly good at it.
I would observe that your inability to understand the point I was making
is by no means likely to be shared by other readers.
Your loyalty to
your religion means that you view with deep suspicion any mention of >religious beliefs,
which you automatically see as an attack on your very
fragile faith in your deity.
Unless you continue to defend your religion
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust.
And in your
role as Defender of the Faith you repeat the same little slogans and you >aren't particularly good at making them relevant.
My point, which I shall repeat, is that a jury has to be "sure" of the >defendant's guilt if it is to convict that defendant. And I say that
most people cannot honestly say that they are "sure" of anything.
Whether it be their job security, their health, the trustworthiness of a >friend or spouse, or anything else.
Yet there are people who operate on a faith based system. They are >absolutely sure that Jesus is looking after them, or that there is an
Allah who expects them to pray regularly in a certain manner. That
certainty of belief might make it easier for them to be sure of other >things, such as a defendant's guilt based on a few witness testimonies
and the shared belief of other jurors.
Hope that helps, but if your anus is still itching I recommend Anusol
from Boots.
My point, which I shall repeat, is that a jury has to be "sure" of the defendant's guilt if it is to convict that defendant. And I say that
most people cannot honestly say that they are "sure" of anything.
Whether it be their job security, their health, the trustworthiness of a friend or spouse, or anything else.
On 08/12/2025 12:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 11:47:41 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you >>>>>> aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know >>>>>> that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the
healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch.
You must admit that the idea that various gods and saints can only concentrate
on human supplications if carried out in specific geographical areas does
suggest a naive anthropomorphisation of deities more suited to mediaeval
understanding than the twentyfirst century?
But I suppose you are going to suggest that it is the state of mind of the >> supplicants that is important here; they only have to think like mediaeval >> peasants?
Is it very different from the mediaeval concept of pilgrimage?
On 07/12/2025 11:35 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 22:52:36 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2025 01:30 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 13:15:43 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2025 12:12 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 00:07:46 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>[ ... ]
I am sure that you will agree that neither of us can be sure of it. >>>>>>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
The gist of that seems (to me) that the jury simply didn't want to >>>>>>>>>>> convict Pryce of conspiracy to pervert the court of justice despite theThey didn't "not want to", but she was using the "marital coercion" >>>>>>>>>> defence, a stupid and anachronistic rule that only still existed by >>>>>>>>>> accident. They were trying in vain to make sense out of a rule that >>>>>>>>>> was simply nonsensical in the modern world.
obvious evidence. None of us here have any way of knowing the true >>>>>>>>>>> position, but it seems to me that there must be a LOT of "penalty points
swapping" being done by spouses or partners. I even remember an episode
of "Lead Balloon" which featured it as a comedy element without >>>>>>>>>>> examining or commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it. >>>>>>>
Fortunately the rule was finally abolished a year later.
In a world which has seen women acquitted of murder (after deliberately
killing allegedly abusive spouses or partners), one has to wonder in >>>>>>>>> which the direction of right-on thought is moving these days.
It's OK to kill a man while he is sleeping as long as he is *said* to >>>>>>>>> have been abusive when awake, but not alright to cower in fear enough to
accept his punishment for breaking traffic laws.
It's a funny old world, isn't it?
Those things are not even slightly inconsistent. Marital coercion was based on
no objective evidence of coercion apart from the "natural" dominance of a
husband. If Pryce had produced any *evidence* of coercive control or violence
from her husband she would quite possibly have been acquitted.
She must have either given testimony or provided other evidence to that >>>>>>> effect. Had she not, that defence could not have been posited.
She gave evidence that he told her to do it, and as a respectful and obedient
wife her will, and mens rea to commit a crime, was totally overpowered by her
marriage vows. Not wholly convincing, I would have thought.
Coercion does not have to be exercised by violence or its threat.
And it is worth pointing out that acquittals for murder of wives killingIsn't that awful?
abusive husbands are far from the norm. And they can still suffer very >>>>>>>> consideral punishment even if only found guilty of manslaughter. >>>>>>>
It is comparable to men killing wives in the heat of the moment because they
have 'provoked' them by doing something annoying. Whether it is reasonable in
either case depends on the facts of the case.
It is never reasonable to kill another human (with the obvious
exceptions of killings in the course of credible self-defence against an >>>>> imminent threat, warfare and lawful execution, just to get those out of >>>>> the way).
Would anyone seriously expect someone guilty of manslaughter of a spouse >>>>> - or of anyone else - not to be punished?
Well no. You seem to have gone off at a bizarre tangent. I thought we were >>>> talking about people being convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. The
question of not punishing them seems to have arisen only in your mind.
So what were you getting at when you wrote:
[VERBATIM:]
"...they can still suffer very consideral punishment even if only found
guilty of manslaughter"?
It reads very much as a criticism of the principle of punishing those
found guilty of the crime of manslaughter.
It only reads that way to a raving lunatic (or possibly liar) trying to make >> an argument about nothing.
You're the one who said it!
I would never try to trivialise any homicide. >
[I loved the use the word "only", BTW! ;-)]
On 8 Dec 2025 at 15:22:45 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2025 12:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 11:47:41 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you >>>>>>> aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know >>>>>>> that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the >>>>> healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch.
You must admit that the idea that various gods and saints can only concentrate
on human supplications if carried out in specific geographical areas does >>> suggest a naive anthropomorphisation of deities more suited to mediaeval >>> understanding than the twentyfirst century?
But I suppose you are going to suggest that it is the state of mind of the >>> supplicants that is important here; they only have to think like mediaeval >>> peasants?
Is it very different from the mediaeval concept of pilgrimage?
I don't know, because I really don't know what the theoretical basis of pilgrimage was. Is it the journey or the destination that is important?
And
why? I have no idea. But going to Lourdes is in no sense a difficult or time consuming pilgrimage nowadays, except perhaps for the more severely disabled.
On 08/12/2025 04:55 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 15:22:45 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2025 12:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 11:47:41 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you
aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know >>>>>>>> that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the >>>>>> healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch.
You must admit that the idea that various gods and saints can only concentrate
on human supplications if carried out in specific geographical areas does >>>> suggest a naive anthropomorphisation of deities more suited to mediaeval >>>> understanding than the twentyfirst century?
But I suppose you are going to suggest that it is the state of mind of the >>>> supplicants that is important here; they only have to think like mediaeval >>>> peasants?
Is it very different from the mediaeval concept of pilgrimage?
I don't know, because I really don't know what the theoretical basis of
pilgrimage was. Is it the journey or the destination that is important?
Both.
And
why? I have no idea. But going to Lourdes is in no sense a difficult or time >> consuming pilgrimage nowadays, except perhaps for the more severely disabled.
The Lourdes trip is a pilgrimage. The St Iago pilgrimage is still
popular with young people.
And perhaps not as outdated as some prefer to think, since Islam still strongly urges a particular pilgrimage upon followers.
On 8 Dec 2025 at 15:21:31 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2025 11:35 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 22:52:36 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2025 01:30 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 13:15:43 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>So what were you getting at when you wrote:
On 07/12/2025 12:12 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 00:07:46 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>[ ... ]
I am sure that you will agree that neither of us can be sure of it. >>>>>>>>She must have either given testimony or provided other evidence to thathttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
The gist of that seems (to me) that the jury simply didn't want to >>>>>>>>>>>> convict Pryce of conspiracy to pervert the court of justice despite theThey didn't "not want to", but she was using the "marital coercion" >>>>>>>>>>> defence, a stupid and anachronistic rule that only still existed by >>>>>>>>>>> accident. They were trying in vain to make sense out of a rule that >>>>>>>>>>> was simply nonsensical in the modern world.
obvious evidence. None of us here have any way of knowing the true >>>>>>>>>>>> position, but it seems to me that there must be a LOT of "penalty points
swapping" being done by spouses or partners. I even remember an episode
of "Lead Balloon" which featured it as a comedy element without >>>>>>>>>>>> examining or commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it. >>>>>>>>
Fortunately the rule was finally abolished a year later.
In a world which has seen women acquitted of murder (after deliberately
killing allegedly abusive spouses or partners), one has to wonder in >>>>>>>>>> which the direction of right-on thought is moving these days. >>>>>>>>
It's OK to kill a man while he is sleeping as long as he is *said* to
have been abusive when awake, but not alright to cower in fear enough to
accept his punishment for breaking traffic laws.
It's a funny old world, isn't it?
Those things are not even slightly inconsistent. Marital coercion was based on
no objective evidence of coercion apart from the "natural" dominance of a
husband. If Pryce had produced any *evidence* of coercive control or violence
from her husband she would quite possibly have been acquitted. >>>>>>>>
effect. Had she not, that defence could not have been posited.
She gave evidence that he told her to do it, and as a respectful and obedient
wife her will, and mens rea to commit a crime, was totally overpowered by her
marriage vows. Not wholly convincing, I would have thought.
Coercion does not have to be exercised by violence or its threat. >>>>>>>>
And it is worth pointing out that acquittals for murder of wives killingIsn't that awful?
abusive husbands are far from the norm. And they can still suffer very
consideral punishment even if only found guilty of manslaughter. >>>>>>>>
It is comparable to men killing wives in the heat of the moment because they
have 'provoked' them by doing something annoying. Whether it is reasonable in
either case depends on the facts of the case.
It is never reasonable to kill another human (with the obvious
exceptions of killings in the course of credible self-defence against an >>>>>> imminent threat, warfare and lawful execution, just to get those out of >>>>>> the way).
Would anyone seriously expect someone guilty of manslaughter of a spouse >>>>>> - or of anyone else - not to be punished?
Well no. You seem to have gone off at a bizarre tangent. I thought we were
talking about people being convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. The
question of not punishing them seems to have arisen only in your mind. >>>>
[VERBATIM:]
"...they can still suffer very consideral punishment even if only found >>>> guilty of manslaughter"?
It reads very much as a criticism of the principle of punishing those
found guilty of the crime of manslaughter.
It only reads that way to a raving lunatic (or possibly liar) trying to make
an argument about nothing.
You're the one who said it!
I would never try to trivialise any homicide.
[I loved the use the word "only", BTW! ;-)]
You are giving the word "only" a commpletely fraudulent significance it simply
does not bear in that context. That is dishonesty.
On 08/12/2025 05:01 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 15:21:31 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2025 11:35 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 22:52:36 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2025 01:30 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 13:15:43 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>So what were you getting at when you wrote:
On 07/12/2025 12:12 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 00:07:46 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>[ ... ]
I am sure that you will agree that neither of us can be sure of it. >>>>>>>>>She gave evidence that he told her to do it, and as a respectful and obedientShe must have either given testimony or provided other evidence to thathttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
The gist of that seems (to me) that the jury simply didn't want toThey didn't "not want to", but she was using the "marital coercion"
convict Pryce of conspiracy to pervert the court of justice despite the
obvious evidence. None of us here have any way of knowing the true
position, but it seems to me that there must be a LOT of "penalty points
swapping" being done by spouses or partners. I even remember an episode
of "Lead Balloon" which featured it as a comedy element without >>>>>>>>>>>>> examining or commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it. >>>>>>>>>
defence, a stupid and anachronistic rule that only still existed by
accident. They were trying in vain to make sense out of a rule that
was simply nonsensical in the modern world.
Fortunately the rule was finally abolished a year later.
In a world which has seen women acquitted of murder (after deliberately
killing allegedly abusive spouses or partners), one has to wonder in
which the direction of right-on thought is moving these days. >>>>>>>>>
It's OK to kill a man while he is sleeping as long as he is *said* to
have been abusive when awake, but not alright to cower in fear enough to
accept his punishment for breaking traffic laws.
It's a funny old world, isn't it?
Those things are not even slightly inconsistent. Marital coercion was based on
no objective evidence of coercion apart from the "natural" dominance of a
husband. If Pryce had produced any *evidence* of coercive control or violence
from her husband she would quite possibly have been acquitted. >>>>>>>>>
effect. Had she not, that defence could not have been posited. >>>>>>>>
wife her will, and mens rea to commit a crime, was totally overpowered by her
marriage vows. Not wholly convincing, I would have thought.
Coercion does not have to be exercised by violence or its threat. >>>>>>>>>
And it is worth pointing out that acquittals for murder of wives killingIsn't that awful?
abusive husbands are far from the norm. And they can still suffer very
consideral punishment even if only found guilty of manslaughter. >>>>>>>>>
It is comparable to men killing wives in the heat of the moment because they
have 'provoked' them by doing something annoying. Whether it is reasonable in
either case depends on the facts of the case.
It is never reasonable to kill another human (with the obvious
exceptions of killings in the course of credible self-defence against an
imminent threat, warfare and lawful execution, just to get those out of >>>>>>> the way).
Would anyone seriously expect someone guilty of manslaughter of a spouse
- or of anyone else - not to be punished?
Well no. You seem to have gone off at a bizarre tangent. I thought we were
talking about people being convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. The
question of not punishing them seems to have arisen only in your mind. >>>>>
[VERBATIM:]
"...they can still suffer very consideral punishment even if only found >>>>> guilty of manslaughter"?
It reads very much as a criticism of the principle of punishing those >>>>> found guilty of the crime of manslaughter.
It only reads that way to a raving lunatic (or possibly liar) trying to make
an argument about nothing.
You're the one who said it!
I would never try to trivialise any homicide.
[I loved the use the word "only", BTW! ;-)]
You are giving the word "only" a commpletely fraudulent significance it simply
does not bear in that context. That is dishonesty.
"Only" is a trivialising term.
For example: "...they can still suffer very consideral punishment even
if *only* found guilty of manslaughter". [my emphasis]
The implication is that those guilty of manslaughter don't really
deserve to be punished at all.
But are the victims less dead or something?
Does the crime have less impact on the victim and/or bereaved family and friends?
On 8 Dec 2025 at 17:21:28 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2025 04:55 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 15:22:45 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2025 12:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 11:47:41 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you
aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know >>>>>>>>> that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the >>>>>>> healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch.
You must admit that the idea that various gods and saints can only concentrate
on human supplications if carried out in specific geographical areas does >>>>> suggest a naive anthropomorphisation of deities more suited to mediaeval >>>>> understanding than the twentyfirst century?
But I suppose you are going to suggest that it is the state of mind of the
supplicants that is important here; they only have to think like mediaeval
peasants?
Is it very different from the mediaeval concept of pilgrimage?
I don't know, because I really don't know what the theoretical basis of
pilgrimage was. Is it the journey or the destination that is important?
Both.
And
why? I have no idea. But going to Lourdes is in no sense a difficult or time
consuming pilgrimage nowadays, except perhaps for the more severely disabled.
The Lourdes trip is a pilgrimage. The St Iago pilgrimage is still
popular with young people.
Yes, but it is not much more onerous than getting a train to London and going >to a football match. Not exactly an overland trip.
And perhaps not as outdated as some prefer to think, since Islam still
strongly urges a particular pilgrimage upon followers.
I think Islam, in common with other organised religions, is pretty outdated, >to be honest.
On 8 Dec 2025 at 17:21:28 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2025 04:55 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 15:22:45 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2025 12:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 11:47:41 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you
aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know >>>>>>>>> that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the >>>>>>> healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch.
You must admit that the idea that various gods and saints can only concentrate
on human supplications if carried out in specific geographical areas does >>>>> suggest a naive anthropomorphisation of deities more suited to mediaeval >>>>> understanding than the twentyfirst century?
But I suppose you are going to suggest that it is the state of mind of the
supplicants that is important here; they only have to think like mediaeval
peasants?
Is it very different from the mediaeval concept of pilgrimage?
I don't know, because I really don't know what the theoretical basis of
pilgrimage was. Is it the journey or the destination that is important?
Both.
And
why? I have no idea. But going to Lourdes is in no sense a difficult or time
consuming pilgrimage nowadays, except perhaps for the more severely disabled.
The Lourdes trip is a pilgrimage. The St Iago pilgrimage is still
popular with young people.
Yes, but it is not much more onerous than getting a train to London and going >to a football match. Not exactly an overland trip.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
And perhaps not as outdated as some prefer to think, since Islam still
strongly urges a particular pilgrimage upon followers.
I think Islam, in common with other organised religions, is pretty outdated, >to be honest.
On 8 Dec 2025 17:31:11 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 17:21:28 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2025 04:55 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 15:22:45 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Both.
On 08/12/2025 12:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 11:47:41 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:You must admit that the idea that various gods and saints can only concentrate
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you
aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know >>>>>>>>>> that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the >>>>>>>> healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch. >>>>>>
on human supplications if carried out in specific geographical areas does
suggest a naive anthropomorphisation of deities more suited to mediaeval >>>>>> understanding than the twentyfirst century?
But I suppose you are going to suggest that it is the state of mind of the
supplicants that is important here; they only have to think like mediaeval
peasants?
Is it very different from the mediaeval concept of pilgrimage?
I don't know, because I really don't know what the theoretical basis of >>>> pilgrimage was. Is it the journey or the destination that is important? >>>
And
why? I have no idea. But going to Lourdes is in no sense a difficult or time
consuming pilgrimage nowadays, except perhaps for the more severely disabled.
The Lourdes trip is a pilgrimage. The St Iago pilgrimage is still
popular with young people.
Yes, but it is not much more onerous than getting a train to London and going
to a football match. Not exactly an overland trip.
And perhaps not as outdated as some prefer to think, since Islam still
strongly urges a particular pilgrimage upon followers.
I think Islam, in common with other organised religions, is pretty outdated, >> to be honest.
What makes you think that, have you ever seriously investigated *any* religious belief?
On 8 Dec 2025 at 18:48:44 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 17:31:11 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 17:21:28 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2025 04:55 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 15:22:45 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>Both.
On 08/12/2025 12:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 11:47:41 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:You must admit that the idea that various gods and saints can only concentrate
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you
aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know
that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the >>>>>>>>> healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch. >>>>>>>
on human supplications if carried out in specific geographical areas does
suggest a naive anthropomorphisation of deities more suited to mediaeval
understanding than the twentyfirst century?
But I suppose you are going to suggest that it is the state of mind of the
supplicants that is important here; they only have to think like mediaeval
peasants?
Is it very different from the mediaeval concept of pilgrimage?
I don't know, because I really don't know what the theoretical basis of >>>>> pilgrimage was. Is it the journey or the destination that is important? >>>>
And
why? I have no idea. But going to Lourdes is in no sense a difficult or time
consuming pilgrimage nowadays, except perhaps for the more severely disabled.
The Lourdes trip is a pilgrimage. The St Iago pilgrimage is still
popular with young people.
Yes, but it is not much more onerous than getting a train to London and going
to a football match. Not exactly an overland trip.
And perhaps not as outdated as some prefer to think, since Islam still >>>> strongly urges a particular pilgrimage upon followers.
I think Islam, in common with other organised religions, is pretty outdated,
to be honest.
What makes you think that, have you ever seriously investigated *any*
religious belief?
I remember once, when very small,investigating the theory that there were >fairies at the bottom of our garden. I rejected it, on the (I now realise >somewhat naive) grounds that there was nowhere for them to hide. Since then I >have not thought it useful to investigate scientifically implausible ideas. >Like "are there places where gravity does not operate?". I have better things >to do - even making toast is more useful.
On 8 Dec 2025 23:30:49 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 18:48:44 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 17:31:11 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 17:21:28 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2025 04:55 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 15:22:45 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>Both.
On 08/12/2025 12:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 11:47:41 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:You must admit that the idea that various gods and saints can only concentrate
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you
aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know
that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the
healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch. >>>>>>>>
on human supplications if carried out in specific geographical areas does
suggest a naive anthropomorphisation of deities more suited to mediaeval
understanding than the twentyfirst century?
But I suppose you are going to suggest that it is the state of mind of the
supplicants that is important here; they only have to think like mediaeval
peasants?
Is it very different from the mediaeval concept of pilgrimage?
I don't know, because I really don't know what the theoretical basis of >>>>>> pilgrimage was. Is it the journey or the destination that is important? >>>>>
And
why? I have no idea. But going to Lourdes is in no sense a difficult or time
consuming pilgrimage nowadays, except perhaps for the more severely disabled.
The Lourdes trip is a pilgrimage. The St Iago pilgrimage is still
popular with young people.
Yes, but it is not much more onerous than getting a train to London and going
to a football match. Not exactly an overland trip.
And perhaps not as outdated as some prefer to think, since Islam still >>>>> strongly urges a particular pilgrimage upon followers.
I think Islam, in common with other organised religions, is pretty outdated,
to be honest.
What makes you think that, have you ever seriously investigated *any*
religious belief?
I remember once, when very small,investigating the theory that there were
fairies at the bottom of our garden. I rejected it, on the (I now realise
somewhat naive) grounds that there was nowhere for them to hide. Since then I
have not thought it useful to investigate scientifically implausible ideas. >> Like "are there places where gravity does not operate?". I have better things
to do - even making toast is more useful.
That's fair enough but do you think it is rational to make sweeping generalisations about a subject that you have never studied?
I remember once, when very small,investigating the theory that there were fairies at the bottom of our garden. I rejected it, on the (I now realise somewhat naive) grounds that there was nowhere for them to hide. Since then I have not thought it useful to investigate scientifically implausible ideas. Like "are there places where gravity does not operate?". I have better things to do - even making toast is more useful.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[rCa]
I remember once, when very small,investigating the theory that there were
fairies at the bottom of our garden. I rejected it, on the (I now realise
somewhat naive) grounds that there was nowhere for them to hide. Since then I
have not thought it useful to investigate scientifically implausible ideas. >> Like "are there places where gravity does not operate?". I have better things
to do - even making toast is more useful.
ThatrCOs an interesting point of view.
If you had lived in the late 18th Century, doubtless as an educated person >you would have formed an opinion on one side or other of the debate that
was under way as to whether the recently-discovered gas chlorine was an >element or not.
Up to that point science viewed elements as having whole numbers for their >atomic weights, yet that of chlorine was circa 35.5, clearly not an integer >value.
It was therefore scientifically implausible that chlorine was an element.
Was that worth investigating further?
Perhaps it is worth investigating scientifically-implausible ideas,
otherwise we would never have transmuted any new elements, one among many >such examples of scientific curiosity against conventional wisdom leading
to new discoveries.
On 9 Dec 2025 at 07:25:43 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 23:30:49 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 18:48:44 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 17:31:11 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 17:21:28 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 08/12/2025 04:55 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 15:22:45 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>Both.
On 08/12/2025 12:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 11:47:41 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:You must admit that the idea that various gods and saints can only concentrate
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch. >>>>>>>>>
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you
aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know
that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the
healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind. >>>>>>>>>>
on human supplications if carried out in specific geographical areas does
suggest a naive anthropomorphisation of deities more suited to mediaeval
understanding than the twentyfirst century?
But I suppose you are going to suggest that it is the state of mind of the
supplicants that is important here; they only have to think like mediaeval
peasants?
Is it very different from the mediaeval concept of pilgrimage?
I don't know, because I really don't know what the theoretical basis of >>>>>>> pilgrimage was. Is it the journey or the destination that is important? >>>>>>
And
why? I have no idea. But going to Lourdes is in no sense a difficult or time
consuming pilgrimage nowadays, except perhaps for the more severely disabled.
The Lourdes trip is a pilgrimage. The St Iago pilgrimage is still
popular with young people.
Yes, but it is not much more onerous than getting a train to London and going
to a football match. Not exactly an overland trip.
And perhaps not as outdated as some prefer to think, since Islam still >>>>>> strongly urges a particular pilgrimage upon followers.
I think Islam, in common with other organised religions, is pretty outdated,
to be honest.
What makes you think that, have you ever seriously investigated *any*
religious belief?
I remember once, when very small,investigating the theory that there were >>> fairies at the bottom of our garden. I rejected it, on the (I now realise >>> somewhat naive) grounds that there was nowhere for them to hide. Since then I
have not thought it useful to investigate scientifically implausible ideas. >>> Like "are there places where gravity does not operate?". I have better things
to do - even making toast is more useful.
That's fair enough but do you think it is rational to make sweeping
generalisations about a subject that you have never studied?
Yes. Depending of course on the subject in question.
On 9 Dec 2025 09:15:17 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[rCa]
I remember once, when very small,investigating the theory that there were >>> fairies at the bottom of our garden. I rejected it, on the (I now realise >>> somewhat naive) grounds that there was nowhere for them to hide. Since then I
have not thought it useful to investigate scientifically implausible ideas.
Like "are there places where gravity does not operate?". I have better things
to do - even making toast is more useful.
ThatrCOs an interesting point of view.
If you had lived in the late 18th Century, doubtless as an educated person >> you would have formed an opinion on one side or other of the debate that
was under way as to whether the recently-discovered gas chlorine was an
element or not.
Up to that point science viewed elements as having whole numbers for their >> atomic weights, yet that of chlorine was circa 35.5, clearly not an integer >> value.
It was therefore scientifically implausible that chlorine was an element.
Was that worth investigating further?
Perhaps it is worth investigating scientifically-implausible ideas,
otherwise we would never have transmuted any new elements, one among many
such examples of scientific curiosity against conventional wisdom leading
to new discoveries.
The reason why science doesn't explore the supernatural is not that it
thinks the supernatural is implausible, it's because science can't
figure out a robust and reliable way of exploring it - reliability and robustness lie at the very heart of the scientific method.
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 09:15:17 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[rCa]
I remember once, when very small,investigating the theory that there were >>>> fairies at the bottom of our garden. I rejected it, on the (I now realise >>>> somewhat naive) grounds that there was nowhere for them to hide. Since then I
have not thought it useful to investigate scientifically implausible ideas.
Like "are there places where gravity does not operate?". I have better things
to do - even making toast is more useful.
ThatrCOs an interesting point of view.
If you had lived in the late 18th Century, doubtless as an educated person >>> you would have formed an opinion on one side or other of the debate that >>> was under way as to whether the recently-discovered gas chlorine was an
element or not.
Up to that point science viewed elements as having whole numbers for their >>> atomic weights, yet that of chlorine was circa 35.5, clearly not an integer >>> value.
It was therefore scientifically implausible that chlorine was an element. >>> Was that worth investigating further?
Perhaps it is worth investigating scientifically-implausible ideas,
otherwise we would never have transmuted any new elements, one among many >>> such examples of scientific curiosity against conventional wisdom leading >>> to new discoveries.
The reason why science doesn't explore the supernatural is not that it
thinks the supernatural is implausible, it's because science can't
figure out a robust and reliable way of exploring it - reliability and
robustness lie at the very heart of the scientific method.
I was taking up HayterrCOs point that rCLSince then I have not thought it >useful to investigate scientifically implausible ideasrCY, which I have >demonstrated is an unsound approach to the unexpected or unexplained.
Interestingly, studies into Near Death Experiences have shown remarkable >consistency across distance, time, and cultures.
On 08/12/2025 15:45, The Todal wrote:
My point, which I shall repeat, is that a jury has to be "sure" of the
defendant's guilt if it is to convict that defendant. And I say that
most people cannot honestly say that they are "sure" of anything.
Whether it be their job security, their health, the trustworthiness of
a friend or spouse, or anything else.
Back here in the real world, 'sure' is something of a continuum, not a pedantic, rigorous mathematical construct meaning absolute provable 100% certainty.
You can, for example be very sure, pretty sure or fairly sure.-a Both are subsets of 'sure' in normal parlance.-a Just as someone is autistic if
they are on the autism spectrum, so someone can be 'sure' if they are 'anywhere on the 'sure' spectrum.
That much is obvious from the fact that juries who are instructed to
convict only if they are 'sure' do nevertheless convict.
I think there are two aspects to the supernatural:
(1) whether there are things beyond the material world
(2) if there are such things; whether they equate to a God as
worshipped by religious believers.
On 8 Dec 2025 23:30:49 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 18:48:44 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 17:31:11 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 17:21:28 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2025 04:55 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 15:22:45 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>Both.
On 08/12/2025 12:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 11:47:41 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:You must admit that the idea that various gods and saints can only concentrate
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you
aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know
that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the
healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch. >>>>>>>>
on human supplications if carried out in specific geographical areas does
suggest a naive anthropomorphisation of deities more suited to mediaeval
understanding than the twentyfirst century?
But I suppose you are going to suggest that it is the state of mind of the
supplicants that is important here; they only have to think like mediaeval
peasants?
Is it very different from the mediaeval concept of pilgrimage?
I don't know, because I really don't know what the theoretical basis of >>>>>> pilgrimage was. Is it the journey or the destination that is important? >>>>>
And
why? I have no idea. But going to Lourdes is in no sense a difficult or time
consuming pilgrimage nowadays, except perhaps for the more severely disabled.
The Lourdes trip is a pilgrimage. The St Iago pilgrimage is still
popular with young people.
Yes, but it is not much more onerous than getting a train to London and going
to a football match. Not exactly an overland trip.
And perhaps not as outdated as some prefer to think, since Islam still >>>>> strongly urges a particular pilgrimage upon followers.
I think Islam, in common with other organised religions, is pretty outdated,
to be honest.
What makes you think that, have you ever seriously investigated *any*
religious belief?
I remember once, when very small,investigating the theory that there were
fairies at the bottom of our garden. I rejected it, on the (I now realise
somewhat naive) grounds that there was nowhere for them to hide. Since then I
have not thought it useful to investigate scientifically implausible ideas. >> Like "are there places where gravity does not operate?". I have better things
to do - even making toast is more useful.
That's fair enough but do you think it is rational to make sweeping generalisations about a subject that you have never studied?
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 09:15:17 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[rCa]
I remember once, when very small,investigating the theory that there were >>>> fairies at the bottom of our garden. I rejected it, on the (I now realise >>>> somewhat naive) grounds that there was nowhere for them to hide. Since then I
have not thought it useful to investigate scientifically implausible ideas.
Like "are there places where gravity does not operate?". I have better things
to do - even making toast is more useful.
ThatrCOs an interesting point of view.
If you had lived in the late 18th Century, doubtless as an educated person >>> you would have formed an opinion on one side or other of the debate that >>> was under way as to whether the recently-discovered gas chlorine was an
element or not.
Up to that point science viewed elements as having whole numbers for their >>> atomic weights, yet that of chlorine was circa 35.5, clearly not an integer >>> value.
It was therefore scientifically implausible that chlorine was an element. >>> Was that worth investigating further?
Perhaps it is worth investigating scientifically-implausible ideas,
otherwise we would never have transmuted any new elements, one among many >>> such examples of scientific curiosity against conventional wisdom leading >>> to new discoveries.
The reason why science doesn't explore the supernatural is not that it
thinks the supernatural is implausible, it's because science can't
figure out a robust and reliable way of exploring it - reliability and
robustness lie at the very heart of the scientific method.
I was taking up HayterrCOs point that rCLSince then I have not thought it useful to investigate scientifically implausible ideasrCY, which I have demonstrated is an unsound approach to the unexpected or unexplained.
Interestingly, studies into Near Death Experiences have shown remarkable consistency across distance, time, and cultures.
On 8 Dec 2025 17:31:11 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 17:21:28 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2025 04:55 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 15:22:45 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Both.
On 08/12/2025 12:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 11:47:41 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:50:12 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:You must admit that the idea that various gods and saints can only concentrate
On 07/12/2025 13:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2025 14:49:11 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
But are you sure? I mean, really sure? How sure can you ever be, if you
aren't a person who says "I know that my redeemer liveth" or "I know >>>>>>>>>> that Jesus watches over me"?
itch, itch... scratch, scratch ... itch, itch ...
You need to ask your doctor for corticosteroid cream.
Alternatively, I recommend that you make a trip to Lourdes, where the >>>>>>>> healing waters can cure every affliction known to mankind.
I told you before, the more you scratch it, the more it will itch. >>>>>>
on human supplications if carried out in specific geographical areas does
suggest a naive anthropomorphisation of deities more suited to mediaeval >>>>>> understanding than the twentyfirst century?
But I suppose you are going to suggest that it is the state of mind of the
supplicants that is important here; they only have to think like mediaeval
peasants?
Is it very different from the mediaeval concept of pilgrimage?
I don't know, because I really don't know what the theoretical basis of >>>> pilgrimage was. Is it the journey or the destination that is important? >>>
And
why? I have no idea. But going to Lourdes is in no sense a difficult or time
consuming pilgrimage nowadays, except perhaps for the more severely disabled.
The Lourdes trip is a pilgrimage. The St Iago pilgrimage is still
popular with young people.
Yes, but it is not much more onerous than getting a train to London and going
to a football match. Not exactly an overland trip.
Again you demonstrate how little that you actually know about what you
are making judgement on. Here's a wee hint for you; the journey is
only important to the extent of the commitment it takes -
psychological as well as financial and time commitment -; what is far
more important is what happens when they are at the place of
pilgrimage.
And perhaps not as outdated as some prefer to think, since Islam still
strongly urges a particular pilgrimage upon followers.
I think Islam, in common with other organised religions, is pretty outdated, >> to be honest.
On 08/12/2025 16:30, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/12/2025 15:45, The Todal wrote:
My point, which I shall repeat, is that a jury has to be "sure" of
the defendant's guilt if it is to convict that defendant. And I say
that most people cannot honestly say that they are "sure" of
anything. Whether it be their job security, their health, the
trustworthiness of a friend or spouse, or anything else.
Back here in the real world, 'sure' is something of a continuum, not a
pedantic, rigorous mathematical construct meaning absolute provable
100% certainty.
You can, for example be very sure, pretty sure or fairly sure.-a Both
are subsets of 'sure' in normal parlance.-a Just as someone is autistic
if they are on the autism spectrum, so someone can be 'sure' if they
are 'anywhere on the 'sure' spectrum.
That much is obvious from the fact that juries who are instructed to
convict only if they are 'sure' do nevertheless convict.
And that's because they are willing to play the game, to embrace the fiction, to do what society requires of them.
Not sure whether the
defendant is telling the truth about his alibi? But is that a
"reasonable" doubt?
Everyone else in the room apart from the silent ones
says that the defendant is lying. So my doubt must be unreasonable.
The concept of being "sure" becomes quite nebulous and flexible.
Yes, we get plenty of convictions. A jury is never wrong, by definition.
I don't say that I welcome the abolition of jury trials. The majority of well informed people have condemned Lammy. And they should be heeded by
the Justice Secretary. However, I still have very little respect for the jury system, and I wonder if they do things better in other more
advanced countries. Grand juries.-a The Cour d'assises in France. In
Britain we tend to stick doggedly to the traditions that have evolved
over centuries.
But in the 19th Century a defendant in an English court
did not actually have the right to give evidence in his defence.
On 8 Dec 2025 at 17:51:08 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 08/12/2025 05:01 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 at 15:21:31 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2025 11:35 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 22:52:36 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 07/12/2025 01:30 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 13:15:43 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 07/12/2025 12:12 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Dec 2025 at 00:07:46 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>[ ... ]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
What you people need is an unmoderated legal group to argu^wdiscuss your points in. Not UNNM.
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there are two aspects to the supernatural:
(1) whether there are things beyond the material world
(2) if there are such things; whether they equate to a God as
worshipped by religious believers.
If "the supernatural" existed and were able to affect the "material
world" in any way, it would by definition be a part of physics.
If it exists and is not able to affect the material world in any way,
then you can believe what you like about it since it is irrelevant,
but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally
small since by definition they would be completely baseless.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 10:42:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there are two aspects to the supernatural:
(1) whether there are things beyond the material world
(2) if there are such things; whether they equate to a God as
worshipped by religious believers.
If "the supernatural" existed and were able to affect the "material
world" in any way, it would by definition be a part of physics.
Which is no different to what I said earlier when I pointed out that exploring the supernatural is beyond the capabilities of science - at
least at the current stage of human knowledge.
If it exists and is not able to affect the material world in any way,
then you can believe what you like about it since it is irrelevant,
but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally >>small since by definition they would be completely baseless.
According to that logic, the many philosophers who have pondered and
continue to ponder things that science cannot address have been
wasting their time. Maybe you should suggest to universities around
the world that they drop philosophy as a subject since it is clearly pointless.
On 09/12/2025 07:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 23:30:49 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
That's fair enough but do you think it is rational to make sweeping
generalisations about a subject that you have never studied?
To study religion is obviously very different from studying chemistry or >physics or paleography. I suppose you would want us to believe that you
have "studied" your religion and are therefore more of an expert than
anyone here. Maybe you rely on books that were given to you in Sunday >School?
You won't find any book, or any human being, that can prove to you that >there is an afterlife,
On 08/12/2025 18:54, Martin Harran wrote:
On 8 Dec 2025 17:31:11 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The Lourdes trip is a pilgrimage. The St Iago pilgrimage is still
popular with young people.
Yes, but it is not much more onerous than getting a train to London and going
to a football match. Not exactly an overland trip.
Again you demonstrate how little that you actually know about what you
are making judgement on. Here's a wee hint for you; the journey is
only important to the extent of the commitment it takes -
psychological as well as financial and time commitment -; what is far
more important is what happens when they are at the place of
pilgrimage.
Thank you so much for that hint. It must be wonderful to have a brain
the size of a planet.
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 10:42:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there are two aspects to the supernatural:
(1) whether there are things beyond the material world
(2) if there are such things; whether they equate to a God as
worshipped by religious believers.
If "the supernatural" existed and were able to affect the "material >>>world" in any way, it would by definition be a part of physics.
Which is no different to what I said earlier when I pointed out that
exploring the supernatural is beyond the capabilities of science - at
least at the current stage of human knowledge.
If it exists and is not able to affect the material world in any way, >>>then you can believe what you like about it since it is irrelevant,
but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally >>>small since by definition they would be completely baseless.
According to that logic, the many philosophers who have pondered and
continue to ponder things that science cannot address have been
wasting their time. Maybe you should suggest to universities around
the world that they drop philosophy as a subject since it is clearly
pointless.
Neither logic nor philosophy would appear to be your strong points.
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
I have 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:23:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 10:42:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there are two aspects to the supernatural:
(1) whether there are things beyond the material world
(2) if there are such things; whether they equate to a God as
worshipped by religious believers.
If "the supernatural" existed and were able to affect the "material >>>>world" in any way, it would by definition be a part of physics.
Which is no different to what I said earlier when I pointed out that
exploring the supernatural is beyond the capabilities of science - at
least at the current stage of human knowledge.
If it exists and is not able to affect the material world in any way, >>>>then you can believe what you like about it since it is irrelevant,
but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally >>>>small since by definition they would be completely baseless.
According to that logic, the many philosophers who have pondered and
continue to ponder things that science cannot address have been
wasting their time. Maybe you should suggest to universities around
the world that they drop philosophy as a subject since it is clearly
pointless.
Neither logic nor philosophy would appear to be your strong points.
I sense a bit of projection going on there. You could dispel it by
explaining how conclusions reached by theologians are baseless but conclusions reached by other philosophers are not baseless.
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I have 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins
As far as I remember, that one mainly just points out that if you argue
that the universe must have a creator therefore god exists, this doesn't
help because you're arguing that god must exist without a creator, which
is less likely than the universe existing without a creator. I don't know
why he takes an entire book to say that.
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:23:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 10:42:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there are two aspects to the supernatural:
(1) whether there are things beyond the material world
(2) if there are such things; whether they equate to a God as
worshipped by religious believers.
If "the supernatural" existed and were able to affect the "material >>>>>world" in any way, it would by definition be a part of physics.
Which is no different to what I said earlier when I pointed out that
exploring the supernatural is beyond the capabilities of science - at
least at the current stage of human knowledge.
If it exists and is not able to affect the material world in any way, >>>>>then you can believe what you like about it since it is irrelevant, >>>>>but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally >>>>>small since by definition they would be completely baseless.
According to that logic, the many philosophers who have pondered and
continue to ponder things that science cannot address have been
wasting their time. Maybe you should suggest to universities around
the world that they drop philosophy as a subject since it is clearly
pointless.
Neither logic nor philosophy would appear to be your strong points.
I sense a bit of projection going on there. You could dispel it by
explaining how conclusions reached by theologians are baseless but
conclusions reached by other philosophers are not baseless.
I could prove my point by observing that I made no such claim.
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com> >>Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
If you're doubting that maths can prove that, you'd be wrong.
Google it if you like.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:23:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 10:42:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there are two aspects to the supernatural:
(1) whether there are things beyond the material world
(2) if there are such things; whether they equate to a God as
worshipped by religious believers.
If "the supernatural" existed and were able to affect the "material >>>>>> world" in any way, it would by definition be a part of physics.
Which is no different to what I said earlier when I pointed out that >>>>> exploring the supernatural is beyond the capabilities of science - at >>>>> least at the current stage of human knowledge.
If it exists and is not able to affect the material world in any way, >>>>>> then you can believe what you like about it since it is irrelevant, >>>>>> but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally >>>>>> small since by definition they would be completely baseless.
According to that logic, the many philosophers who have pondered and >>>>> continue to ponder things that science cannot address have been
wasting their time. Maybe you should suggest to universities around
the world that they drop philosophy as a subject since it is clearly >>>>> pointless.
Neither logic nor philosophy would appear to be your strong points.
I sense a bit of projection going on there. You could dispel it by
explaining how conclusions reached by theologians are baseless but
conclusions reached by other philosophers are not baseless.
I could prove my point by observing that I made no such claim.
And I could point out that I didn't say you made such a claim, I
pointed out it was the logical conclusion from what you did say.
Let me summarise it for you in simple terms:
You said "If it [the supernatural] exists and is not able to affect
the material world in any way, then you can believe what you like
about it since it is irrelevant, but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally small since by definition they would
be completely baseless."
The logic of that is that the chances of correct conclusions drawn
from any study of any subject that does not affect the material world
in any way would be infinitesimally small since by definition they too
would be completely baseless.
The logic of that in turn is that philosophers are wasting their time
when they study and ponder things that do not affect the material
world in any way.
Feel free to point out the errors in my own logic.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:23:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 10:42:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there are two aspects to the supernatural:
(1) whether there are things beyond the material world
(2) if there are such things; whether they equate to a God as
worshipped by religious believers.
If "the supernatural" existed and were able to affect the "material >>>>>>world" in any way, it would by definition be a part of physics.
Which is no different to what I said earlier when I pointed out that >>>>> exploring the supernatural is beyond the capabilities of science - at >>>>> least at the current stage of human knowledge.
If it exists and is not able to affect the material world in any way, >>>>>>then you can believe what you like about it since it is irrelevant, >>>>>>but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally >>>>>>small since by definition they would be completely baseless.
According to that logic, the many philosophers who have pondered and >>>>> continue to ponder things that science cannot address have been
wasting their time. Maybe you should suggest to universities around
the world that they drop philosophy as a subject since it is clearly >>>>> pointless.
Neither logic nor philosophy would appear to be your strong points.
I sense a bit of projection going on there. You could dispel it by
explaining how conclusions reached by theologians are baseless but
conclusions reached by other philosophers are not baseless.
I could prove my point by observing that I made no such claim.
And I could point out that I didn't say you made such a claim, I
pointed out it was the logical conclusion from what you did say.
Let me summarise it for you in simple terms:
You said "If it [the supernatural] exists and is not able to affect
the material world in any way, then you can believe what you like
about it since it is irrelevant, but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally small since by definition they would
be completely baseless."
The logic of that is that the chances of correct conclusions drawn
from any study of any subject that does not affect the material world
in any way would be infinitesimally small since by definition they too
would be completely baseless.
The logic of that in turn is that philosophers are wasting their time
when they study and ponder things that do not affect the material
world in any way.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:45:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I have 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins
As far as I remember, that one mainly just points out that if you argue >>that the universe must have a creator therefore god exists, this doesn't >>help because you're arguing that god must exist without a creator, which
is less likely than the universe existing without a creator. I don't know >>why he takes an entire book to say that.
Dawkins has kind of lost his influence by coming out with equally
stupid claims in other areas;
for example, his claim that there is far
too much fuss made about the impact of sexual child abuse as a
particular teacher fiddled with him and other school friends and it
did them no harm at all, they just laughed it off as more or less a
rite of passage in their school. He later went on to tell a pregnant
woman who discovered that the child she was carrying has Downs
Syndrome, that she didn't just have the right to have an abortion, she
had a moral duty to have one.
On 09/12/2025 in message
<slrn10jgabi.22d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com> >>>Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
If you're doubting that maths can prove that, you'd be wrong.
Google it if you like.
I'll await Martin's reply if you don't mind.
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
To study religion is obviously very different from studying chemistry or physics or paleography. I suppose you would want us to believe that you
have "studied" your religion and are therefore more of an expert than
anyone here. Maybe you rely on books that were given to you in Sunday School?
You won't find any book, or any human being, that can prove to you that there is an afterlife, which surely for many religious people is the
main point of having a religion. Fear of dying, fear of what happens
when you die.
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
ISTR that it took Whitehead and Russell a few hundred pages to get
there, but yes.
On 09/12/2025 in message <slrn10jgabi.22d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com> >>>Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
If you're doubting that maths can prove that, you'd be wrong.
Google it if you like.
I'll await Martin's reply if you don't mind.
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?ISTR that it took Whitehead and Russell a few hundred pages to get
there, but yes.
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:23:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 10:42:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there are two aspects to the supernatural:
(1) whether there are things beyond the material world
(2) if there are such things; whether they equate to a God as
worshipped by religious believers.
If "the supernatural" existed and were able to affect the "material >>>>>>>world" in any way, it would by definition be a part of physics.
Which is no different to what I said earlier when I pointed out that >>>>>> exploring the supernatural is beyond the capabilities of science - at >>>>>> least at the current stage of human knowledge.
If it exists and is not able to affect the material world in any way, >>>>>>>then you can believe what you like about it since it is irrelevant, >>>>>>>but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally >>>>>>>small since by definition they would be completely baseless.
According to that logic, the many philosophers who have pondered and >>>>>> continue to ponder things that science cannot address have been
wasting their time. Maybe you should suggest to universities around >>>>>> the world that they drop philosophy as a subject since it is clearly >>>>>> pointless.
Neither logic nor philosophy would appear to be your strong points.
I sense a bit of projection going on there. You could dispel it by
explaining how conclusions reached by theologians are baseless but
conclusions reached by other philosophers are not baseless.
I could prove my point by observing that I made no such claim.
And I could point out that I didn't say you made such a claim, I
pointed out it was the logical conclusion from what you did say.
Which it isn't.
Let me summarise it for you in simple terms:
You said "If it [the supernatural] exists and is not able to affect
the material world in any way, then you can believe what you like
about it since it is irrelevant, but the chances of your beliefs being
correct would be infinitesimally small since by definition they would
be completely baseless."
The logic of that is that the chances of correct conclusions drawn
from any study of any subject that does not affect the material world
in any way would be infinitesimally small since by definition they too
would be completely baseless.
The logic of that in turn is that philosophers are wasting their time
when they study and ponder things that do not affect the material
world in any way.
Perhaps you could give a concrete example of what you mean?
On 9 Dec 2025 at 14:20:48 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:23:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 10:42:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there are two aspects to the supernatural:
(1) whether there are things beyond the material world
(2) if there are such things; whether they equate to a God as
worshipped by religious believers.
If "the supernatural" existed and were able to affect the "material >>>>>>> world" in any way, it would by definition be a part of physics.
Which is no different to what I said earlier when I pointed out that >>>>>> exploring the supernatural is beyond the capabilities of science - at >>>>>> least at the current stage of human knowledge.
If it exists and is not able to affect the material world in any way, >>>>>>> then you can believe what you like about it since it is irrelevant, >>>>>>> but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally >>>>>>> small since by definition they would be completely baseless.
According to that logic, the many philosophers who have pondered and >>>>>> continue to ponder things that science cannot address have been
wasting their time. Maybe you should suggest to universities around >>>>>> the world that they drop philosophy as a subject since it is clearly >>>>>> pointless.
Neither logic nor philosophy would appear to be your strong points.
I sense a bit of projection going on there. You could dispel it by
explaining how conclusions reached by theologians are baseless but
conclusions reached by other philosophers are not baseless.
I could prove my point by observing that I made no such claim.
And I could point out that I didn't say you made such a claim, I
pointed out it was the logical conclusion from what you did say.
Let me summarise it for you in simple terms:
You said "If it [the supernatural] exists and is not able to affect
the material world in any way, then you can believe what you like
about it since it is irrelevant, but the chances of your beliefs being
correct would be infinitesimally small since by definition they would
be completely baseless."
The logic of that is that the chances of correct conclusions drawn
from any study of any subject that does not affect the material world
in any way would be infinitesimally small since by definition they too
would be completely baseless.
The logic of that in turn is that philosophers are wasting their time
when they study and ponder things that do not affect the material
world in any way.
Feel free to point out the errors in my own logic.
The main logical error is to claim that philosophers in general study things >that don't affect the material world.
Possibly that is true of some, but there
are many who study things highly relevant to the material world.
On 12/9/25 15:28, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
ISTR that it took Whitehead and Russell a few hundred pages to get
there, but yes.
It all depends.
I don't know what Russell and Whitehead got up to because they failed.
Not failed to prove 1+1=2, but failed to establish a logical framework
from which all maths could be built. Apparently it isn't possible.
So instead of teaching Russell and Whitehead they teach set theory, and >stuff like Von Neumann ordinals and a recursive successor function. Or
at least they did when I were a lad. Which is kind of OK.
The problem is, we don't really have a proper definition for infinite
sets. So AIUI, when people talk about fundamental proofs, everyone
mumbles, looks at their feet, and then gets on with the useful stuff
they were doing before the question was asked.
Best leave it to Martin and the Catholics.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 15:03:24 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:23:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 10:42:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there are two aspects to the supernatural:
(1) whether there are things beyond the material world
(2) if there are such things; whether they equate to a God as >>>>>>>>> worshipped by religious believers.
If "the supernatural" existed and were able to affect the "material >>>>>>>>world" in any way, it would by definition be a part of physics.
Which is no different to what I said earlier when I pointed out that >>>>>>> exploring the supernatural is beyond the capabilities of science - at >>>>>>> least at the current stage of human knowledge.
If it exists and is not able to affect the material world in any way, >>>>>>>>then you can believe what you like about it since it is irrelevant, >>>>>>>>but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally >>>>>>>>small since by definition they would be completely baseless.
According to that logic, the many philosophers who have pondered and >>>>>>> continue to ponder things that science cannot address have been
wasting their time. Maybe you should suggest to universities around >>>>>>> the world that they drop philosophy as a subject since it is clearly >>>>>>> pointless.
Neither logic nor philosophy would appear to be your strong points.
I sense a bit of projection going on there. You could dispel it by
explaining how conclusions reached by theologians are baseless but
conclusions reached by other philosophers are not baseless.
I could prove my point by observing that I made no such claim.
And I could point out that I didn't say you made such a claim, I
pointed out it was the logical conclusion from what you did say.
Which it isn't.
Let me summarise it for you in simple terms:
You said "If it [the supernatural] exists and is not able to affect
the material world in any way, then you can believe what you like
about it since it is irrelevant, but the chances of your beliefs being
correct would be infinitesimally small since by definition they would
be completely baseless."
The logic of that is that the chances of correct conclusions drawn
from any study of any subject that does not affect the material world
in any way would be infinitesimally small since by definition they too
would be completely baseless.
The logic of that in turn is that philosophers are wasting their time
when they study and ponder things that do not affect the material
world in any way.
Perhaps you could give a concrete example of what you mean?
David Chalmers and his hard problem.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 16:14:04 +0000, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 12/9/25 15:28, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
ISTR that it took Whitehead and Russell a few hundred pages to get
there, but yes.
It all depends.
I don't know what Russell and Whitehead got up to because they failed.
Not failed to prove 1+1=2, but failed to establish a logical framework
from which all maths could be built. Apparently it isn't possible.
So instead of teaching Russell and Whitehead they teach set theory, and
stuff like Von Neumann ordinals and a recursive successor function. Or
at least they did when I were a lad. Which is kind of OK.
The problem is, we don't really have a proper definition for infinite
sets. So AIUI, when people talk about fundamental proofs, everyone
mumbles, looks at their feet, and then gets on with the useful stuff
they were doing before the question was asked.
Best leave it to Martin and the Catholics.
You were doing quite well there until you got a touch of Todal itch.
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 15:03:24 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:23:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:I sense a bit of projection going on there. You could dispel it by >>>>>> explaining how conclusions reached by theologians are baseless but >>>>>> conclusions reached by other philosophers are not baseless.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 10:42:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I think there are two aspects to the supernatural:Which is no different to what I said earlier when I pointed out that >>>>>>>> exploring the supernatural is beyond the capabilities of science - at >>>>>>>> least at the current stage of human knowledge.
(1) whether there are things beyond the material world
(2) if there are such things; whether they equate to a God as >>>>>>>>>> worshipped by religious believers.
If "the supernatural" existed and were able to affect the "material >>>>>>>>>world" in any way, it would by definition be a part of physics. >>>>>>>>
If it exists and is not able to affect the material world in any way, >>>>>>>>>then you can believe what you like about it since it is irrelevant, >>>>>>>>>but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally >>>>>>>>>small since by definition they would be completely baseless.
According to that logic, the many philosophers who have pondered and >>>>>>>> continue to ponder things that science cannot address have been >>>>>>>> wasting their time. Maybe you should suggest to universities around >>>>>>>> the world that they drop philosophy as a subject since it is clearly >>>>>>>> pointless.
Neither logic nor philosophy would appear to be your strong points. >>>>>>
I could prove my point by observing that I made no such claim.
And I could point out that I didn't say you made such a claim, I
pointed out it was the logical conclusion from what you did say.
Which it isn't.
Let me summarise it for you in simple terms:
You said "If it [the supernatural] exists and is not able to affect
the material world in any way, then you can believe what you like
about it since it is irrelevant, but the chances of your beliefs being >>>> correct would be infinitesimally small since by definition they would
be completely baseless."
The logic of that is that the chances of correct conclusions drawn
from any study of any subject that does not affect the material world
in any way would be infinitesimally small since by definition they too >>>> would be completely baseless.
The logic of that in turn is that philosophers are wasting their time
when they study and ponder things that do not affect the material
world in any way.
Perhaps you could give a concrete example of what you mean?
David Chalmers and his hard problem.
You could've just asked if you didn't understand the phrase "does not
affect the material world". Although admittedly it may not have helped
much since I don't know if I could make that any more simple than it
already is.
On 9 Dec 2025 14:53:08 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 at 14:20:48 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:23:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:I sense a bit of projection going on there. You could dispel it by
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 10:42:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:Which is no different to what I said earlier when I pointed out that >>>>>>> exploring the supernatural is beyond the capabilities of science - at >>>>>>> least at the current stage of human knowledge.
I think there are two aspects to the supernatural:
(1) whether there are things beyond the material world
(2) if there are such things; whether they equate to a God as >>>>>>>>> worshipped by religious believers.
If "the supernatural" existed and were able to affect the "material >>>>>>>> world" in any way, it would by definition be a part of physics. >>>>>>>
If it exists and is not able to affect the material world in any way, >>>>>>>> then you can believe what you like about it since it is irrelevant, >>>>>>>> but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally >>>>>>>> small since by definition they would be completely baseless.
According to that logic, the many philosophers who have pondered and >>>>>>> continue to ponder things that science cannot address have been
wasting their time. Maybe you should suggest to universities around >>>>>>> the world that they drop philosophy as a subject since it is clearly >>>>>>> pointless.
Neither logic nor philosophy would appear to be your strong points. >>>>>
explaining how conclusions reached by theologians are baseless but
conclusions reached by other philosophers are not baseless.
I could prove my point by observing that I made no such claim.
And I could point out that I didn't say you made such a claim, I
pointed out it was the logical conclusion from what you did say.
Let me summarise it for you in simple terms:
You said "If it [the supernatural] exists and is not able to affect
the material world in any way, then you can believe what you like
about it since it is irrelevant, but the chances of your beliefs being
correct would be infinitesimally small since by definition they would
be completely baseless."
The logic of that is that the chances of correct conclusions drawn
from any study of any subject that does not affect the material world
in any way would be infinitesimally small since by definition they too
would be completely baseless.
The logic of that in turn is that philosophers are wasting their time
when they study and ponder things that do not affect the material
world in any way.
Feel free to point out the errors in my own logic.
The main logical error is to claim that philosophers in general study things >> that don't affect the material world.
If it is something that can be answered by science then it doesn't
need a philosopher to seek answers.
Possibly that is true of some, but there
are many who study things highly relevant to the material world.
Men and women falling in love with each other is highly relevant to
the material world but physics does offer much of an explanation as to
what that love is.
On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:01:40 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 16:14:04 +0000, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 12/9/25 15:28, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com> >>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
ISTR that it took Whitehead and Russell a few hundred pages to get
there, but yes.
It all depends.
I don't know what Russell and Whitehead got up to because they failed.
Not failed to prove 1+1=2, but failed to establish a logical framework
from which all maths could be built. Apparently it isn't possible.
So instead of teaching Russell and Whitehead they teach set theory, and
stuff like Von Neumann ordinals and a recursive successor function. Or
at least they did when I were a lad. Which is kind of OK.
The problem is, we don't really have a proper definition for infinite
sets. So AIUI, when people talk about fundamental proofs, everyone
mumbles, looks at their feet, and then gets on with the useful stuff
they were doing before the question was asked.
Best leave it to Martin and the Catholics.
You were doing quite well there until you got a touch of Todal itch.
Are catholics like trans-women, too fragile to even be drawn attention to, let
alone made to feel unsafe by being criticised? An ethereal sacred caste?
On 2025-12-09, The Todal wrote:
To study religion is obviously very different from studying chemistry or
physics or paleography. I suppose you would want us to believe that you
have "studied" your religion and are therefore more of an expert than
anyone here. Maybe you rely on books that were given to you in Sunday
School?
You won't find any book, or any human being, that can prove to you that
there is an afterlife, which surely for many religious people is the
main point of having a religion. Fear of dying, fear of what happens
when you die.
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
(Obviously this is totally
incompatible with right-wing politics.)
On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:01:40 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 16:14:04 +0000, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 12/9/25 15:28, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com> >>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
ISTR that it took Whitehead and Russell a few hundred pages to get
there, but yes.
It all depends.
I don't know what Russell and Whitehead got up to because they failed.
Not failed to prove 1+1=2, but failed to establish a logical framework
from which all maths could be built. Apparently it isn't possible.
So instead of teaching Russell and Whitehead they teach set theory, and
stuff like Von Neumann ordinals and a recursive successor function. Or
at least they did when I were a lad. Which is kind of OK.
The problem is, we don't really have a proper definition for infinite
sets. So AIUI, when people talk about fundamental proofs, everyone
mumbles, looks at their feet, and then gets on with the useful stuff
they were doing before the question was asked.
Best leave it to Martin and the Catholics.
You were doing quite well there until you got a touch of Todal itch.
Are catholics like trans-women, too fragile to even be drawn attention to, let >alone made to feel unsafe by being criticised? An ethereal sacred caste?
On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:00:47 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 14:53:08 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 at 14:20:48 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:23:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:I sense a bit of projection going on there. You could dispel it by >>>>>> explaining how conclusions reached by theologians are baseless but >>>>>> conclusions reached by other philosophers are not baseless.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 10:42:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I think there are two aspects to the supernatural:Which is no different to what I said earlier when I pointed out that >>>>>>>> exploring the supernatural is beyond the capabilities of science - at >>>>>>>> least at the current stage of human knowledge.
(1) whether there are things beyond the material world
(2) if there are such things; whether they equate to a God as >>>>>>>>>> worshipped by religious believers.
If "the supernatural" existed and were able to affect the "material >>>>>>>>> world" in any way, it would by definition be a part of physics. >>>>>>>>
If it exists and is not able to affect the material world in any way, >>>>>>>>> then you can believe what you like about it since it is irrelevant, >>>>>>>>> but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally
small since by definition they would be completely baseless.
According to that logic, the many philosophers who have pondered and >>>>>>>> continue to ponder things that science cannot address have been >>>>>>>> wasting their time. Maybe you should suggest to universities around >>>>>>>> the world that they drop philosophy as a subject since it is clearly >>>>>>>> pointless.
Neither logic nor philosophy would appear to be your strong points. >>>>>>
I could prove my point by observing that I made no such claim.
And I could point out that I didn't say you made such a claim, I
pointed out it was the logical conclusion from what you did say.
Let me summarise it for you in simple terms:
You said "If it [the supernatural] exists and is not able to affect
the material world in any way, then you can believe what you like
about it since it is irrelevant, but the chances of your beliefs being >>>> correct would be infinitesimally small since by definition they would
be completely baseless."
The logic of that is that the chances of correct conclusions drawn
from any study of any subject that does not affect the material world
in any way would be infinitesimally small since by definition they too >>>> would be completely baseless.
The logic of that in turn is that philosophers are wasting their time
when they study and ponder things that do not affect the material
world in any way.
Feel free to point out the errors in my own logic.
The main logical error is to claim that philosophers in general study things
that don't affect the material world.
If it is something that can be answered by science then it doesn't
need a philosopher to seek answers.
Possibly that is true of some, but there
are many who study things highly relevant to the material world.
Men and women falling in love with each other is highly relevant to
the material world but physics does offer much of an explanation as to
what that love is.
There is your fallacy; not affecting the material world is not the same as >being fully defined by science. Perhaps the greater part of human experience >is most definitely part of the material world despite not being amenable to >scientific study. Not only philosophy but most of psychology, sociology, >politics and economics is not really science but important for all that.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 17:47:42 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
David Chalmers and his hard problem.
You could've just asked if you didn't understand the phrase "does not >>affect the material world". Although admittedly it may not have helped
much since I don't know if I could make that any more simple than it >>already is.
Perhaps I'm being unwittingly obtuse here but it would really help me
if you could explain the difference between the Hard Problem affecting
the material world and religious belief affecting it.
Not at all. The Catholic Church deserves criticism if not outright condemnation in a number of areas in which I am one of its harshest
critics. I do, however, have this 'thing' about accuracy and it bugs
me when people attack it in areas where the criticism is totally
unwarranted and based on pure ignorance.
Pancho, for example, seems unaware of (or perhaps unwilling to
recognise) the enormous positive contribution that the Catholic Church
has made to science. For example, that Copernicus, the first person to
put forward a serious proposal about heliocentrism, was a Catholic
cleric; that genes were discovered by Gregor Mendle a Catholic cleric
who is now recognised as the 'Father of Genetics'; that the Big Bang
theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest
whose ideas were first scorned by Einstein and then enthusiastically supported by him.
Do I really need to go into the leading role that Jesuits played in
astronomy with at (at least 35 craters on the moon named after Jesuit astronomers) or their major contributions to seismology? Or perhaps I
need to mention the important role of the present-day Vatican
Observatory or the Pontifical Academy of Science, currently headed by
a Protestant Lutheran and addressed by leading atheist scientists like Stephen Hawkins (who was also a member).
On 9 Dec 2025 18:35:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:00:47 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Men and women falling in love with each other is highly relevant to
the material world but physics does offer much of an explanation as to
what that love is.
There is your fallacy; not affecting the material world is not the same as >>being fully defined by science. Perhaps the greater part of human experience >>is most definitely part of the material world despite not being amenable to >>scientific study. Not only philosophy but most of psychology, sociology, >>politics and economics is not really science but important for all that.
I'm not sure it is you who is getting confused, you ore me, but you
seem to be supporting my POV rather than Jon's.
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
On 9 Dec 2025 14:39:07 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <slrn10jgabi.22d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com> >>>>Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
If you're doubting that maths can prove that, you'd be wrong.
Google it if you like.
I'll await Martin's reply if you don't mind.
Martin makes no claim to be a mathematician but he does know how to
Google and found this in something like 10 seconds:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath&cc=umhistmath&idno=aat3201.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=401
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
-- Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would >>>> want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since the criminal
would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal and no-one committing or
contemplating the commission of a crime wants to be arrested, tried and punished.
- Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would >>>>> want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since the criminal
would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal and no-one committing or
contemplating the commission of a crime wants to be arrested, tried and punished.
So because you're seemingly incapable of understanding Jesus Christ's message with your "Taken literally" claim, in effect you're claiming that Jesus Christ
as quoted by the two Evangelists there, was quite simply "wrong", are you ?
That he made a mistake ?
So that the whole basis of your own Catholic faith, has been shown to be a complete sham; solely on the basis of one single undisputed quotation
from the New Testament; of which you were apparently, blissfully unaware.
So what else could he have got wrong, do you think ?
On 09/12/2025 09:57 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would >>>>>> want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since the criminal
would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal and no-one committing or
contemplating the commission of a crime wants to be arrested, tried and punished.
So because you're seemingly incapable of understanding Jesus Christ's message
with your "Taken literally" claim, in effect you're claiming that Jesus Christ
as quoted by the two Evangelists there, was quite simply "wrong", are you ?
No.
What I am saying, quite clearly, is that YOU were wrong in adding your own spurious
words into a quote from the Gospel, as you were correcting an obvious omission from it.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 09:57 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...No.
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would >>>>>>> want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since the criminal
would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal and no-one committing or
contemplating the commission of a crime wants to be arrested, tried and punished.
So because you're seemingly incapable of understanding Jesus Christ's message
with your "Taken literally" claim, in effect you're claiming that Jesus Christ
as quoted by the two Evangelists there, was quite simply "wrong", are you ? >>
What I am saying, quite clearly, is that YOU were wrong in adding your own spurious
words into a quote from the Gospel, as you were correcting an obvious omission from it.
It really is difficult to decide whether you arrogance outweighs your ignorance; or
whether it is the other way around.
Jesus Died for our Sins.
Well obviously not for any or yours; as you've never committed any sins. As you
never tire of reminding everyone
You're clearly special. Super endowed with God's Grace; such that there's never been any possibility of you ever becoming a criminal yourself.
You must almost "glow" with Pride when you walk down the street!
So that Christ's obvious meaning
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, were for instance you
a criminal yourself" *
Simply flew straight over the top of your head.
[ snip typical Todal rant in absence of any real argument]
On 09/12/2025 06:30 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:01:40 GMT, "Martin Harran"
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 16:14:04 +0000, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 12/9/25 15:28, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com> >>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
ISTR that it took Whitehead and Russell a few hundred pages to get
there, but yes.
It all depends.
I don't know what Russell and Whitehead got up to because they failed. >>>> Not failed to prove 1+1=2, but failed to establish a logical framework >>>> from which all maths could be built. Apparently it isn't possible.
So instead of teaching Russell and Whitehead they teach set theory, and >>>> stuff like Von Neumann ordinals and a recursive successor function. Or >>>> at least they did when I were a lad. Which is kind of OK.
The problem is, we don't really have a proper definition for infinite
sets. So AIUI, when people talk about fundamental proofs, everyone
mumbles, looks at their feet, and then gets on with the useful stuff
they were doing before the question was asked.
Best leave it to Martin and the Catholics.
You were doing quite well there until you got a touch of Todal itch.
Are catholics like trans-women, too fragile to even be drawn attention
to, let
alone made to feel unsafe by being criticised? An ethereal sacred caste?
What criticism do you have to make of a religion which holds that people should behave well to one another and not commit theft, murder, perjury, adultery, etc?
The religion, not (some of) its nominal adherents.
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:45:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I have 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins
As far as I remember, that one mainly just points out that if you argue
that the universe must have a creator therefore god exists, this doesn't >>> help because you're arguing that god must exist without a creator, which >>> is less likely than the universe existing without a creator. I don't know >>> why he takes an entire book to say that.
Dawkins has kind of lost his influence by coming out with equally
stupid claims in other areas;
The above isn't a stupid claim though. If you argue that god exists
because the universe must have a creator, but god can exist without
a creator, the argument is self-contradictory.
for example, his claim that there is far
too much fuss made about the impact of sexual child abuse as a
particular teacher fiddled with him and other school friends and it
did them no harm at all, they just laughed it off as more or less a
rite of passage in their school. He later went on to tell a pregnant
woman who discovered that the child she was carrying has Downs
Syndrome, that she didn't just have the right to have an abortion, she
had a moral duty to have one.
Yes, he's a total dickhead these days. Hence the necessity for saying
things like "I'm an atheist, but not like that arsehole Dawkins".
On 09/12/2025 18:37, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2025 06:30 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:01:40 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 16:14:04 +0000, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 12/9/25 15:28, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com> >>>>>>>Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
ISTR that it took Whitehead and Russell a few hundred pages to get >>>>>>there, but yes.
It all depends.
I don't know what Russell and Whitehead got up to because they failed. >>>>>Not failed to prove 1+1=2, but failed to establish a logical framework >>>>>from which all maths could be built. Apparently it isn't possible.
So instead of teaching Russell and Whitehead they teach set theory, and >>>>>stuff like Von Neumann ordinals and a recursive successor function. Or >>>>>at least they did when I were a lad. Which is kind of OK.
The problem is, we don't really have a proper definition for infinite >>>>>sets. So AIUI, when people talk about fundamental proofs, everyone >>>>>mumbles, looks at their feet, and then gets on with the useful stuff >>>>>they were doing before the question was asked.
Best leave it to Martin and the Catholics.
You were doing quite well there until you got a touch of Todal itch.
Are catholics like trans-women, too fragile to even be drawn attention >>>to, let
alone made to feel unsafe by being criticised? An ethereal sacred caste?
What criticism do you have to make of a religion which holds that people >>should behave well to one another and not commit theft, murder, perjury, >>adultery, etc?
The religion, not (some of) its nominal adherents.
A religion that has covered up child abuse, inhumane physical punishment
of children in Catholic schools, the molesting of vulnerable people by >priests, the torture and burning of those whose version of Christianity
does not fit the establishment view.
A religion that pretends that corruptible priests have been given
authority from God to forgive sins, even if those sins are to many people >unforgiveable.
A religion that pretends that without its commandments human beings would
be incapable of decent behaviour - and indeed, maybe many Christians may >perhaps have been born without any moral compass, any sense of reciprocal >altruism, any motivation other than the selfish desire to enjoy
themselves, and therefore in need of the restraint provided by their holy >book.
Martin will be along in a minute to call this a 'rant' and therefore to be >disregarded.
On 09/12/2025 11:02 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 09:57 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would >>>>>>>> want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since the criminal
would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal and no-one committing
or
contemplating the commission of a crime wants to be arrested, tried and punished.
So because you're seemingly incapable of understanding Jesus Christ's message
with your "Taken literally" claim, in effect you're claiming that Jesus Christ
as quoted by the two Evangelists there, was quite simply "wrong", are you ?
No.
What I am saying, quite clearly, is that YOU were wrong in adding your own spurious
words into a quote from the Gospel, as you were correcting an obvious omission from
it.
It really is difficult to decide whether you arrogance outweighs your ignorance; or
whether it is the other way around.
I once heard (or read) an anecdotal quote from Lord Louis Mountbatten, who was alleged
to have said (as part of a speech):
"As God once said - and I think, rightly - [then some quotation from the Bible]"
hilarious because it obviously does not fall to humans - not even devout
religionists - to judge what God (within any religion) said. The only thing that falls
to humans to judge is what other humans may have said or done.
And you committed the same (rather silly) faux pas by thinking that you could improve
on the words of the Gospel by adding in a few of your own in order to try to better
make your own point.
Jesus Died for our Sins.
Please tell me
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would >>>> want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since
the criminal would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal
and no-one committing or contemplating the commission of a crime wants
to be arrested, tried and punished.
But there's no need to take those three words ["in his situation"] >literally, since they were not in the source you quoted.
-- Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
No. I also remember the one about "Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbour", which is what you were doing by traducing the
the words of the Gospel you cited. I am being charitable in taking the
line that you misinterpreted those words, especially by adding spurious >words of your own.
On 09/12/2025 13:29, Martin Harran wrote:
[ snip typical Todal rant in absence of any real argument]
Interesting - you snip the verbatim quotations from the Christian
funeral service and dismiss them as a Todal rant.
Maybe you should consult your books.
On 09/12/2025 in message <o6kgjktp62e7elge4sh7gaq6absg9qv83s@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 14:39:07 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <slrn10jgabi.22d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com> >>>>>Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
If you're doubting that maths can prove that, you'd be wrong.
Google it if you like.
I'll await Martin's reply if you don't mind.
Martin makes no claim to be a mathematician but he does know how to
Google and found this in something like 10 seconds:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath&cc=umhistmath&idno=aat3201.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=401
Wow, I didn't realise it was that simple :-)
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Not at all. The Catholic Church deserves criticism if not outright
condemnation in a number of areas in which I am one of its harshest
critics. I do, however, have this 'thing' about accuracy and it bugs
me when people attack it in areas where the criticism is totally
unwarranted and based on pure ignorance.
Pancho, for example, seems unaware of (or perhaps unwilling to
recognise) the enormous positive contribution that the Catholic Church
has made to science. For example, that Copernicus, the first person to
put forward a serious proposal about heliocentrism, was a Catholic
cleric; that genes were discovered by Gregor Mendle a Catholic cleric
who is now recognised as the 'Father of Genetics'; that the Big Bang
theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest
whose ideas were first scorned by Einstein and then enthusiastically
supported by him.
Do I really need to go into the leading role that Jesuits played in
astronomy with at (at least 35 craters on the moon named after Jesuit
astronomers) or their major contributions to seismology? Or perhaps I
need to mention the important role of the present-day Vatican
Observatory or the Pontifical Academy of Science, currently headed by
a Protestant Lutheran and addressed by leading atheist scientists like
Stephen Hawkins (who was also a member).
You seem to be conflating people who are Catholic making achievements,
and the Catholic Church itself making those achievements.
Given a vast number of Europeans are Catholic it would be surprising
if there weren't a lot of European innovations created by Catholics.
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:45:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I have 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins
As far as I remember, that one mainly just points out that if you argue >>>that the universe must have a creator therefore god exists, this doesn't >>>help because you're arguing that god must exist without a creator, which >>>is less likely than the universe existing without a creator. I don't know >>>why he takes an entire book to say that.
Dawkins has kind of lost his influence by coming out with equally
stupid claims in other areas;
The above isn't a stupid claim though. If you argue that god exists
because the universe must have a creator,
but god can exist without
a creator, the argument is self-contradictory.
for example, his claim that there is far
too much fuss made about the impact of sexual child abuse as a
particular teacher fiddled with him and other school friends and it
did them no harm at all, they just laughed it off as more or less a
rite of passage in their school. He later went on to tell a pregnant
woman who discovered that the child she was carrying has Downs
Syndrome, that she didn't just have the right to have an abortion, she
had a moral duty to have one.
Yes, he's a total dickhead these days. Hence the necessity for saying
things like "I'm an atheist, but not like that arsehole Dawkins".
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 17:47:42 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
David Chalmers and his hard problem.
You could've just asked if you didn't understand the phrase "does not >>>affect the material world". Although admittedly it may not have helped >>>much since I don't know if I could make that any more simple than it >>>already is.
Perhaps I'm being unwittingly obtuse here but it would really help me
if you could explain the difference between the Hard Problem affecting
the material world and religious belief affecting it.
Unless you want to claim it is doubtful that conscious beings exist in
the material world, the "Hard Problem" clearly affects it.
Religious *beliefs* clearly also affect the world, but belief is not >supernatural. The things that are *believed in* might be supernatural,
but those thigns are not the belief itself.
On 09/12/2025 18:37, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2025 06:30 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:01:40 GMT, "Martin Harran"
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 16:14:04 +0000, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 12/9/25 15:28, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message
<q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics. >>>>>>>Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
ISTR that it took Whitehead and Russell a few hundred pages to get >>>>>> there, but yes.
It all depends.
I don't know what Russell and Whitehead got up to because they failed. >>>>> Not failed to prove 1+1=2, but failed to establish a logical framework >>>>> from which all maths could be built. Apparently it isn't possible.
So instead of teaching Russell and Whitehead they teach set theory, >>>>> and
stuff like Von Neumann ordinals and a recursive successor function. Or >>>>> at least they did when I were a lad. Which is kind of OK.
The problem is, we don't really have a proper definition for infinite >>>>> sets. So AIUI, when people talk about fundamental proofs, everyone
mumbles, looks at their feet, and then gets on with the useful stuff >>>>> they were doing before the question was asked.
Best leave it to Martin and the Catholics.
You were doing quite well there until you got a touch of Todal itch.
Are catholics like trans-women, too fragile to even be drawn
attention to, let
alone made to feel unsafe by being criticised? An ethereal sacred caste?
What criticism do you have to make of a religion which holds that
people should behave well to one another and not commit theft, murder,
perjury, adultery, etc?
The religion, not (some of) its nominal adherents.
A religion that has covered up child abuse, inhumane physical punishment
of children in Catholic schools, the molesting of vulnerable people by priests, the torture and burning of those whose version of Christianity
does not fit the establishment view.
A religion that pretends that corruptible priests have been given
authority from God to forgive sins, even if those sins are to many
people unforgiveable.
A religion that pretends that without its commandments human beings
would be incapable of decent behaviour - and indeed, maybe many
Christians may perhaps have been born without any moral compass, any
sense of reciprocal altruism, any motivation other than the selfish
desire to enjoy themselves, and therefore in need of the restraint
provided by their holy book.
Martin will be along in a minute to call this a 'rant' and therefore to
be disregarded.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mprsm6Fi7qiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 09/12/2025 11:02 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 09:57 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since the criminal
would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal and no-one committing
or
contemplating the commission of a crime wants to be arrested, tried and punished.
It of course, implies no such thing
So that for instance, should a person say be tempted to be a thief
"Only steal from others, if you yourself are prepared to have others steal from
you in turn"
It is simply an exhortation to "think of the effect on the other person" before performing any action. So that if indeed you found yourself in their situation, in this instance the victim of the theft you are about to perform, then how would you feel ?
This is just so elementary.
And no this isn't some sort of re-iteration of the Old Testament
exhortation of "An eye for an eye". It's just a further expression of the so-called "Golden Rule"; which ideally should govern all behaviour.
"How would you feel if somebody else did this to you ?"
As I said, this is just so elementary.
So because you're seemingly incapable of understanding Jesus Christ's message
with your "Taken literally" claim, in effect you're claiming that Jesus Christ
as quoted by the two Evangelists there, was quite simply "wrong", are you ?
No.
What I am saying, quite clearly, is that YOU were wrong in adding your own spurious
words into a quote from the Gospel, as you were correcting an obvious omission from
it.
It really is difficult to decide whether you arrogance outweighs your ignorance; or
whether it is the other way around.
I once heard (or read) an anecdotal quote from Lord Louis Mountbatten, who was alleged
to have said (as part of a speech):
"As God once said - and I think, rightly - [then some quotation from the Bible]"
That was in fact, Field Marshal Montgomery. So yet another "faux pas" on your part .
> hilarious because it obviously does not fall to humans - not even devout
religionists - to judge what God (within any religion) said. The only thing that falls
to humans to judge is what other humans may have said or done.
And you committed the same (rather silly) faux pas by thinking that you could improve
on the words of the Gospel by adding in a few of your own in order to try to better
make your own point.
As I said, it was Montgomery.
And on the contrary, it was hilarious precisely because it was something
that nobody would doubt that Montgomery, given his air of supreme self confidence and adherence to muscular Christianity*, might possibly
say. If only unwittingly.
Or even if only apocryphally.
.
Whereas Mountbatten's interests, so at least we are led to believe, lay
more in muscular midshipmen than in muscular Christianity.
And so that would be another "faux pas".
So that along with your not recognising the instance of "Golden Rule"
above, that's three "faux pas" you've committed in this one post alone.
Tell me, as you're clearly the expert on such matters do the French
have a special term for three such "faux pas" committed in
succession ?
Or do they just curl up with embarrassment, and quietly slink away ?
One can only live in hopes, I suppose.
Jesus Died for our Sins.
Please tell me
No thank you.
The depths of your ignorance are clearly beyond measure.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:56:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:45:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I have 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins
As far as I remember, that one mainly just points out that if you argue >>>>that the universe must have a creator therefore god exists, this doesn't >>>>help because you're arguing that god must exist without a creator, which >>>>is less likely than the universe existing without a creator. I don't know >>>>why he takes an entire book to say that.
Dawkins has kind of lost his influence by coming out with equally
stupid claims in other areas;
The above isn't a stupid claim though. If you argue that god exists
because the universe must have a creator,
I don't know any mainstream Christian denomination that makes that
argument.
but god can exist without a creator, the argument is self-contradictory.
It is a stupid claim akin to arguing that there could not have been an original chicken as it would have to have come from an egg and that
egg could not have existed without the chicken being there.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:23:33 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 17:47:42 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
David Chalmers and his hard problem.
You could've just asked if you didn't understand the phrase "does not >>>>affect the material world". Although admittedly it may not have helped >>>>much since I don't know if I could make that any more simple than it >>>>already is.
Perhaps I'm being unwittingly obtuse here but it would really help me
if you could explain the difference between the Hard Problem affecting
the material world and religious belief affecting it.
Unless you want to claim it is doubtful that conscious beings exist in
the material world, the "Hard Problem" clearly affects it.
The Hard Problem and the supernatural are both unamenable to science
at this stage and nobody has any idea yet how they could be made
amenable in the future.
Religious *beliefs* clearly also affect the world, but belief is not >>supernatural. The things that are *believed in* might be supernatural,
but those thigns are not the belief itself.
You seem to be falling into an a priori fallacy there - you are
assuming that the supernatural world does not affect the material
world.
On 9 Dec 2025 20:17:57 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <o6kgjktp62e7elge4sh7gaq6absg9qv83s@4ax.com> >>Martin Harran wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 14:39:07 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message >>>><slrn10jgabi.22d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com> >>>>>>Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
If you're doubting that maths can prove that, you'd be wrong.
Google it if you like.
I'll await Martin's reply if you don't mind.
Martin makes no claim to be a mathematician but he does know how to >>>Google and found this in something like 10 seconds:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath&cc=umhistmath&idno=aat3201.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=401
Wow, I didn't realise it was that simple :-)
No quite sure what you are referring to as simple. If you mean using
Google to find stuff then yes, it really is that simple. If you mean
the proof of 1+1=2 then it certainly does not look simple to me but,
as I already noted, I make to claim to being a mathematician.
On 10/12/2025 in message <kakijkha7omjlg406faejq0dfv9krug8gs@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 20:17:57 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <o6kgjktp62e7elge4sh7gaq6absg9qv83s@4ax.com> >>>Martin Harran wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 14:39:07 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message >>>>><slrn10jgabi.22d.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 in message <q18gjkhglj3eptkr4k3ls6elnk58m2n9fe@4ax.com> >>>>>>>Martin Harran wrote:
You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics.
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?
If you're doubting that maths can prove that, you'd be wrong.
Google it if you like.
I'll await Martin's reply if you don't mind.
Martin makes no claim to be a mathematician but he does know how to >>>>Google and found this in something like 10 seconds:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath&cc=umhistmath&idno=aat3201.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=401
Wow, I didn't realise it was that simple :-)
No quite sure what you are referring to as simple. If you mean using
Google to find stuff then yes, it really is that simple. If you mean
the proof of 1+1=2 then it certainly does not look simple to me but,
as I already noted, I make to claim to being a mathematician.
You said, way back:
"You won't find proof of anything in life except in mathematics."
And I asked if you could prove 1 plus 1 was true.
I'll flag it with an irony alert if I do it again.
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:56:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:45:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I have 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins
As far as I remember, that one mainly just points out that if you argue >>>>> that the universe must have a creator therefore god exists, this doesn't >>>>> help because you're arguing that god must exist without a creator, which >>>>> is less likely than the universe existing without a creator. I don't know >>>>> why he takes an entire book to say that.
Dawkins has kind of lost his influence by coming out with equally
stupid claims in other areas;
The above isn't a stupid claim though. If you argue that god exists
because the universe must have a creator,
I don't know any mainstream Christian denomination that makes that
argument.
I didn't say they did, although I'm surprised you haven't heard of
Saint Thomas Aquinas. But it's been a standard attempt at a proof
of the existence of god for longer than Christianity has existed.
but god can exist without a creator, the argument is self-contradictory.
It is a stupid claim akin to arguing that there could not have been an
original chicken as it would have to have come from an egg and that
egg could not have existed without the chicken being there.
I guess that's why Dawkins needed a whole book to explain it, if there
are people like you who somehow can't understand my one-sentence version.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:05:21 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would >>>>> want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since
the criminal would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal >>and no-one committing or contemplating the commission of a crime wants
to be arrested, tried and punished.
But there's no need to take those three words ["in his situation"] >>literally, since they were not in the source you quoted.
- Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
No. I also remember the one about "Thou shalt not bear false witness >>against thy neighbour", which is what you were doing by traducing the
the words of the Gospel you cited. I am being charitable in taking the
line that you misinterpreted those words, especially by adding spurious >>words of your own.
It always fascinates me that people who reject the Bible and show no
signs of ever having studied it feel totally competent to select
isolated quotations from it and give lectures about the meaning of
that quotation to people who believe in the Bible and use it
regularly.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message news:irjijk99tuogfil9beoaui29fo2625d84c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:05:21 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would >>>>>> want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since
the criminal would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal >>> and no-one committing or contemplating the commission of a crime wants
to be arrested, tried and punished.
But there's no need to take those three words ["in his situation"]
literally, since they were not in the source you quoted.
N++ Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
No. I also remember the one about "Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbour", which is what you were doing by traducing the
the words of the Gospel you cited. I am being charitable in taking the
line that you misinterpreted those words, especially by adding spurious
words of your own.
It always fascinates me that people who reject the Bible and show no
signs of ever having studied it feel totally competent to select
isolated quotations from it and give lectures about the meaning of
that quotation to people who believe in the Bible and use it
regularly.
Except Catholics don't use the Bible regularly at all, do they ?
Why would the Catholic Church, want to cut out the middleman ?
That's the priests job. To tell you lot what to believe; and keep you all
in line
Its interesting how its automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't
profess the Roman Catholic faith, but sees the whole thing for the racket that it undoubtedly is, are automatically assumed to know nothing
whatsoever about the Christian Faith .
When I have pointed out to you more than once on this Forum, that many
God fearing sincere Christians regard you, and your priests and your
Pope as being the Ant-Christ.
Actually doing the work of Satan to undermine true Christian belief.
So that when people are told "Blessed are the poor" and witness
the luxury in which Popes and Cardinals wallow in Rome (Thin
Cardinals are even more rare on the ground than are thin policemen)
they are immediately moved to say "what a load of hypocrites these
Christians are ! I'll have no part of them"
Ant-Christ !
On 10/12/2025 09:56 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mprsm6Fi7qiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 09/12/2025 11:02 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 09:57 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since the
criminal
would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal and no-one committing
or
contemplating the commission of a crime wants to be arrested, tried and punished.
It of course, implies no such thing
So that for instance, should a person say be tempted to be a thief
"Only steal from others, if you yourself are prepared to have others steal from
you in turn"
It is simply an exhortation to "think of the effect on the other person"
before performing any action. So that if indeed you found yourself in their >> situation, in this instance the victim of the theft you are about to perform,
then how would you feel ?
This is just so elementary.
And no this isn't some sort of re-iteration of the Old Testament
exhortation of "An eye for an eye". It's just a further expression of the
so-called "Golden Rule"; which ideally should govern all behaviour.
"How would you feel if somebody else did this to you ?"
As I said, this is just so elementary.
You are just making your position worse.
Can we expect a new edition of the Old and new Testaments:
"The Holy Bible according to and newly re-interpreted by William Bookcase"?
So because you're seemingly incapable of understanding Jesus Christ's message
with your "Taken literally" claim, in effect you're claiming that Jesus Christ
as quoted by the two Evangelists there, was quite simply "wrong", are you ?
No.
What I am saying, quite clearly, is that YOU were wrong in adding your own spurious
words into a quote from the Gospel, as you were correcting an obvious omission from
it.
It really is difficult to decide whether you arrogance outweighs your ignorance; or
whether it is the other way around.
I once heard (or read) an anecdotal quote from Lord Louis Mountbatten, who was
alleged
to have said (as part of a speech):
"As God once said - and I think, rightly - [then some quotation from the Bible]"
That was in fact, Field Marshal Montgomery. So yet another "faux pas" on your part .
Fair enough.
> hilarious because it obviously does not fall to humans - not even devout >>> religionists - to judge what God (within any religion) said. The only thing that
falls
to humans to judge is what other humans may have said or done.
And you committed the same (rather silly) faux pas by thinking that you could improve
on the words of the Gospel by adding in a few of your own in order to try to better
make your own point.
As I said, it was Montgomery.
And *you*, of course! :-)
And on the contrary, it was hilarious precisely because it was something
that nobody would doubt that Montgomery, given his air of supreme self
confidence and adherence to muscular Christianity*, might possibly
say. If only unwittingly.
Or even if only apocryphally.
.
Whereas Mountbatten's interests, so at least we are led to believe, lay
more in muscular midshipmen than in muscular Christianity.
And so that would be another "faux pas".
So that along with your not recognising the instance of "Golden Rule"
above, that's three "faux pas" you've committed in this one post alone.
Tell me, as you're clearly the expert on such matters do the French
have a special term for three such "faux pas" committed in
succession ?
Or do they just curl up with embarrassment, and quietly slink away ?
One can only live in hopes, I suppose.
Jesus Died for our Sins.
Please tell me
No thank you.
The depths of your ignorance are clearly beyond measure.
More snipping and editing so as to change the sense of what has been said?
On 10 Dec 2025 at 14:02:02 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:irjijk99tuogfil9beoaui29fo2625d84c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:05:21 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would >>>>>>> want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since >>>> the criminal would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal >>>> and no-one committing or contemplating the commission of a crime wants >>>> to be arrested, tried and punished.
But there's no need to take those three words ["in his situation"]
literally, since they were not in the source you quoted.
? Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
No. I also remember the one about "Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbour", which is what you were doing by traducing the
the words of the Gospel you cited. I am being charitable in taking the >>>> line that you misinterpreted those words, especially by adding spurious >>>> words of your own.
It always fascinates me that people who reject the Bible and show no
signs of ever having studied it feel totally competent to select
isolated quotations from it and give lectures about the meaning of
that quotation to people who believe in the Bible and use it
regularly.
Except Catholics don't use the Bible regularly at all, do they ?
Why would the Catholic Church, want to cut out the middleman ?
That's the priests job. To tell you lot what to believe; and keep you all
in line
Its interesting how its automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't
profess the Roman Catholic faith, but sees the whole thing for the racket
that it undoubtedly is, are automatically assumed to know nothing
whatsoever about the Christian Faith .
When I have pointed out to you more than once on this Forum, that many
God fearing sincere Christians regard you, and your priests and your
Pope as being the Ant-Christ.
Actually doing the work of Satan to undermine true Christian belief.
So that when people are told "Blessed are the poor" and witness
the luxury in which Popes and Cardinals wallow in Rome (Thin
Cardinals are even more rare on the ground than are thin policemen)
they are immediately moved to say "what a load of hypocrites these
Christians are ! I'll have no part of them"
Ant-Christ !
Yes, ISTR in the '70s there was a very reasonable and fair-minded chap called Paisley on the telly, who tentatively expressed that point of view.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:7586906354.08cfc8f3@uninhabited.net...
On 10 Dec 2025 at 14:02:02 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:irjijk99tuogfil9beoaui29fo2625d84c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:05:21 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would >>>>>>>> want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since >>>>> the criminal would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal >>>>> and no-one committing or contemplating the commission of a crime wants >>>>> to be arrested, tried and punished.
But there's no need to take those three words ["in his situation"]
literally, since they were not in the source you quoted.
? Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
No. I also remember the one about "Thou shalt not bear false witness >>>>> against thy neighbour", which is what you were doing by traducing the >>>>> the words of the Gospel you cited. I am being charitable in taking the >>>>> line that you misinterpreted those words, especially by adding spurious >>>>> words of your own.
It always fascinates me that people who reject the Bible and show no
signs of ever having studied it feel totally competent to select
isolated quotations from it and give lectures about the meaning of
that quotation to people who believe in the Bible and use it
regularly.
Except Catholics don't use the Bible regularly at all, do they ?
Why would the Catholic Church, want to cut out the middleman ?
That's the priests job. To tell you lot what to believe; and keep you all >>> in line
Its interesting how its automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't
profess the Roman Catholic faith, but sees the whole thing for the racket >>> that it undoubtedly is, are automatically assumed to know nothing
whatsoever about the Christian Faith .
When I have pointed out to you more than once on this Forum, that many
God fearing sincere Christians regard you, and your priests and your
Pope as being the Ant-Christ.
Actually doing the work of Satan to undermine true Christian belief.
So that when people are told "Blessed are the poor" and witness
the luxury in which Popes and Cardinals wallow in Rome (Thin
Cardinals are even more rare on the ground than are thin policemen)
they are immediately moved to say "what a load of hypocrites these
Christians are ! I'll have no part of them"
Ant-Christ !
Yes, ISTR in the '70s there was a very reasonable and fair-minded chap called
Paisley on the telly, who tentatively expressed that point of view.
He was safely able to tone down the rhetoric later on; in the face of the catastrophic
decline in influence of the Catholic Chirch in Irelalnd as a result of the various
scandals.
Strarting with Eamonn Casey the Bishop of Galway; who in 1992 was found to have been
supporting an illegitimate child out of Church Funds a.k.a Bishop Brennan in "Father
Ted"
Its maybe no wonder "they" don't like it.
Then came Fr Brendan Smyth and all the pedo scandals. So that by that stage the
"anti-christ"
tag had become somewhat redundant
bb
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:irjijk99tuogfil9beoaui29fo2625d84c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:05:21 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would >>>>>> want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since >>>the criminal would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal >>>and no-one committing or contemplating the commission of a crime wants
to be arrested, tried and punished.
But there's no need to take those three words ["in his situation"] >>>literally, since they were not in the source you quoted.
?Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
No. I also remember the one about "Thou shalt not bear false witness >>>against thy neighbour", which is what you were doing by traducing the
the words of the Gospel you cited. I am being charitable in taking the >>>line that you misinterpreted those words, especially by adding spurious >>>words of your own.
It always fascinates me that people who reject the Bible and show no
signs of ever having studied it feel totally competent to select
isolated quotations from it and give lectures about the meaning of
that quotation to people who believe in the Bible and use it
regularly.
Except Catholics don't use the Bible regularly at all, do they ?
Why would the Catholic Church, want to cut out the middleman ?
That's the priests job. To tell you lot what to believe; and keep you all
in line
Its interesting how its automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't
profess the Roman Catholic faith, but sees the whole thing for the racket >that it undoubtedly is, are automatically assumed to know nothing
whatsoever about the Christian Faith .
When I have pointed out to you more than once on this Forum, that many
God fearing sincere Christians regard you, and your priests and your
Pope as being the Ant-Christ.
Actually doing the work of Satan to undermine true Christian belief.
So that when people are told "Blessed are the poor"
and witness
the luxury in which Popes and Cardinals wallow in Rome (Thin
Cardinals are even more rare on the ground than are thin policemen)
they are immediately moved to say "what a load of hypocrites these
Christians are ! I'll have no part of them"
Ant-Christ !
bb
.
On 10 Dec 2025 at 14:51:36 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7586906354.08cfc8f3@uninhabited.net...
On 10 Dec 2025 at 14:02:02 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:irjijk99tuogfil9beoaui29fo2625d84c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:05:21 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since >>>>>> the criminal would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal >>>>>> and no-one committing or contemplating the commission of a crime wants >>>>>> to be arrested, tried and punished.
But there's no need to take those three words ["in his situation"] >>>>>> literally, since they were not in the source you quoted.
? Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
No. I also remember the one about "Thou shalt not bear false witness >>>>>> against thy neighbour", which is what you were doing by traducing the >>>>>> the words of the Gospel you cited. I am being charitable in taking the >>>>>> line that you misinterpreted those words, especially by adding spurious >>>>>> words of your own.
It always fascinates me that people who reject the Bible and show no >>>>> signs of ever having studied it feel totally competent to select
isolated quotations from it and give lectures about the meaning of
that quotation to people who believe in the Bible and use it
regularly.
Except Catholics don't use the Bible regularly at all, do they ?
Why would the Catholic Church, want to cut out the middleman ?
That's the priests job. To tell you lot what to believe; and keep you all >>>> in line
Its interesting how its automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't
profess the Roman Catholic faith, but sees the whole thing for the racket >>>> that it undoubtedly is, are automatically assumed to know nothing
whatsoever about the Christian Faith .
When I have pointed out to you more than once on this Forum, that many >>>> God fearing sincere Christians regard you, and your priests and your
Pope as being the Ant-Christ.
Actually doing the work of Satan to undermine true Christian belief.
So that when people are told "Blessed are the poor" and witness
the luxury in which Popes and Cardinals wallow in Rome (Thin
Cardinals are even more rare on the ground than are thin policemen)
they are immediately moved to say "what a load of hypocrites these
Christians are ! I'll have no part of them"
Ant-Christ !
Yes, ISTR in the '70s there was a very reasonable and fair-minded chap called
Paisley on the telly, who tentatively expressed that point of view.
He was safely able to tone down the rhetoric later on; in the face of the
catastrophic
decline in influence of the Catholic Chirch in Irelalnd as a result of the >> various
scandals.
Strarting with Eamonn Casey the Bishop of Galway; who in 1992 was found to >> have been
supporting an illegitimate child out of Church Funds a.k.a Bishop Brennan in >> "Father
Ted"
Its maybe no wonder "they" don't like it.
Then came Fr Brendan Smyth and all the pedo scandals. So that by that stage the
"anti-christ"
tag had become somewhat redundant
bb
One bunch of christians criticising another bunch of christians has generally >struck me as odious hypocrisy. I doubt there is an organised church without >such skeletons.
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 14:02:02 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:irjijk99tuogfil9beoaui29fo2625d84c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:05:21 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would >>>>>>> want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since >>>>the criminal would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal >>>>and no-one committing or contemplating the commission of a crime wants >>>>to be arrested, tried and punished.
But there's no need to take those three words ["in his situation"] >>>>literally, since they were not in the source you quoted.
?Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
No. I also remember the one about "Thou shalt not bear false witness >>>>against thy neighbour", which is what you were doing by traducing the >>>>the words of the Gospel you cited. I am being charitable in taking the >>>>line that you misinterpreted those words, especially by adding spurious >>>>words of your own.
It always fascinates me that people who reject the Bible and show no
signs of ever having studied it feel totally competent to select
isolated quotations from it and give lectures about the meaning of
that quotation to people who believe in the Bible and use it
regularly.
Except Catholics don't use the Bible regularly at all, do they ?
Again you do not let your abysmal lack of knowledge of the Catholic
Church prevent you from making statements about it. Every time a
Catholic attend Mass they hear either 3 or 4 passages from different
parts of the Bible and usually a homily addressing at least one of
those passages.
Why would the Catholic Church, want to cut out the middleman ?
That's the priests job. To tell you lot what to believe; and keep you all >>in line
You really do have a weird idea about how the Catholic Church operates nowadays.
Its interesting how its automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't >>profess the Roman Catholic faith, but sees the whole thing for the racket >>that it undoubtedly is, are automatically assumed to know nothing >>whatsoever about the Christian Faith .
When I have pointed out to you more than once on this Forum, that many
God fearing sincere Christians regard you, and your priests and your
Pope as being the Ant-Christ.
Actually doing the work of Satan to undermine true Christian belief.
So that when people are told "Blessed are the poor"
QED concerning people who reject the Bible not having the slightest compunction in pontificating about selected verses from it.
On 10 Dec 2025 15:01:33 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Dec 2025 at 14:51:36 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7586906354.08cfc8f3@uninhabited.net...
On 10 Dec 2025 at 14:02:02 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:irjijk99tuogfil9beoaui29fo2625d84c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:05:21 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since >>>>>>> the criminal would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal
and no-one committing or contemplating the commission of a crime wants >>>>>>> to be arrested, tried and punished.
But there's no need to take those three words ["in his situation"] >>>>>>> literally, since they were not in the source you quoted.
? Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
No. I also remember the one about "Thou shalt not bear false witness >>>>>>> against thy neighbour", which is what you were doing by traducing the >>>>>>> the words of the Gospel you cited. I am being charitable in taking the >>>>>>> line that you misinterpreted those words, especially by adding spurious >>>>>>> words of your own.
It always fascinates me that people who reject the Bible and show no >>>>>> signs of ever having studied it feel totally competent to select
isolated quotations from it and give lectures about the meaning of >>>>>> that quotation to people who believe in the Bible and use it
regularly.
Except Catholics don't use the Bible regularly at all, do they ?
Why would the Catholic Church, want to cut out the middleman ?
That's the priests job. To tell you lot what to believe; and keep you all >>>>> in line
Its interesting how its automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't >>>>> profess the Roman Catholic faith, but sees the whole thing for the racket >>>>> that it undoubtedly is, are automatically assumed to know nothing
whatsoever about the Christian Faith .
When I have pointed out to you more than once on this Forum, that many >>>>> God fearing sincere Christians regard you, and your priests and your >>>>> Pope as being the Ant-Christ.
Actually doing the work of Satan to undermine true Christian belief. >>>>>
So that when people are told "Blessed are the poor" and witness
the luxury in which Popes and Cardinals wallow in Rome (Thin
Cardinals are even more rare on the ground than are thin policemen)
they are immediately moved to say "what a load of hypocrites these
Christians are ! I'll have no part of them"
Ant-Christ !
Yes, ISTR in the '70s there was a very reasonable and fair-minded chap called
Paisley on the telly, who tentatively expressed that point of view.
He was safely able to tone down the rhetoric later on; in the face of the >>> catastrophic
decline in influence of the Catholic Chirch in Irelalnd as a result of the >>> various
scandals.
Strarting with Eamonn Casey the Bishop of Galway; who in 1992 was found to >>> have been
supporting an illegitimate child out of Church Funds a.k.a Bishop Brennan in
"Father
Ted"
Its maybe no wonder "they" don't like it.
Then came Fr Brendan Smyth and all the pedo scandals. So that by that stage the
"anti-christ"
tag had become somewhat redundant
bb
One bunch of christians criticising another bunch of christians has generally
struck me as odious hypocrisy. I doubt there is an organised church without >> such skeletons.
I doubt whether there is any human organisation without such
skeletons; we've seen it in the BBC, in Scouting, in swimming clubs,
in youth football training rCa.
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:56:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:45:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I have 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins
As far as I remember, that one mainly just points out that if you argue >>>>>that the universe must have a creator therefore god exists, this doesn't >>>>>help because you're arguing that god must exist without a creator, which >>>>>is less likely than the universe existing without a creator. I don't know >>>>>why he takes an entire book to say that.
Dawkins has kind of lost his influence by coming out with equally
stupid claims in other areas;
The above isn't a stupid claim though. If you argue that god exists >>>because the universe must have a creator,
I don't know any mainstream Christian denomination that makes that
argument.
I didn't say they did,
although I'm surprised you haven't heard of
Saint Thomas Aquinas. But it's been a standard attempt at a proof
of the existence of god for longer than Christianity has existed.
but god can exist without a creator, the argument is self-contradictory.
It is a stupid claim akin to arguing that there could not have been an
original chicken as it would have to have come from an egg and that
egg could not have existed without the chicken being there.
I guess that's why Dawkins needed a whole book to explain it, if there
are people like you who somehow can't understand my one-sentence version.
On 10 Dec 2025 at 12:26:47 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >wrote:
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:56:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:45:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I have 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins
As far as I remember, that one mainly just points out that if you argue >>>>>> that the universe must have a creator therefore god exists, this doesn't >>>>>> help because you're arguing that god must exist without a creator, which >>>>>> is less likely than the universe existing without a creator. I don't know
why he takes an entire book to say that.
Dawkins has kind of lost his influence by coming out with equally
stupid claims in other areas;
The above isn't a stupid claim though. If you argue that god exists
because the universe must have a creator,
I don't know any mainstream Christian denomination that makes that
argument.
I didn't say they did, although I'm surprised you haven't heard of
Saint Thomas Aquinas. But it's been a standard attempt at a proof
of the existence of god for longer than Christianity has existed.
but god can exist without a creator, the argument is self-contradictory. >>>It is a stupid claim akin to arguing that there could not have been an
original chicken as it would have to have come from an egg and that
egg could not have existed without the chicken being there.
I guess that's why Dawkins needed a whole book to explain it, if there
are people like you who somehow can't understand my one-sentence version.
While I accept it is unknowable and therefore unhelpful, it is quite simple to >get round Dawkins' objection by postulating that there is some form of >existence outside the known universe which is not subject (unlike the >universe) to the irreversibility and inexorability of time.
On 10 Dec 2025 at 15:33:40 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 Dec 2025 15:01:33 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Dec 2025 at 14:51:36 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7586906354.08cfc8f3@uninhabited.net...
On 10 Dec 2025 at 14:02:02 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:irjijk99tuogfil9beoaui29fo2625d84c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:05:21 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since >>>>>>>> the criminal would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal
and no-one committing or contemplating the commission of a crime wants >>>>>>>> to be arrested, tried and punished.
But there's no need to take those three words ["in his situation"] >>>>>>>> literally, since they were not in the source you quoted.
? Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
No. I also remember the one about "Thou shalt not bear false witness >>>>>>>> against thy neighbour", which is what you were doing by traducing the >>>>>>>> the words of the Gospel you cited. I am being charitable in taking the >>>>>>>> line that you misinterpreted those words, especially by adding spurious
words of your own.
It always fascinates me that people who reject the Bible and show no >>>>>>> signs of ever having studied it feel totally competent to select >>>>>>> isolated quotations from it and give lectures about the meaning of >>>>>>> that quotation to people who believe in the Bible and use it
regularly.
Except Catholics don't use the Bible regularly at all, do they ?
Why would the Catholic Church, want to cut out the middleman ?
That's the priests job. To tell you lot what to believe; and keep you all
in line
Its interesting how its automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't >>>>>> profess the Roman Catholic faith, but sees the whole thing for the racket
that it undoubtedly is, are automatically assumed to know nothing
whatsoever about the Christian Faith .
When I have pointed out to you more than once on this Forum, that many >>>>>> God fearing sincere Christians regard you, and your priests and your >>>>>> Pope as being the Ant-Christ.
Actually doing the work of Satan to undermine true Christian belief. >>>>>>
So that when people are told "Blessed are the poor" and witness
the luxury in which Popes and Cardinals wallow in Rome (Thin
Cardinals are even more rare on the ground than are thin policemen) >>>>>> they are immediately moved to say "what a load of hypocrites these >>>>>> Christians are ! I'll have no part of them"
Ant-Christ !
Yes, ISTR in the '70s there was a very reasonable and fair-minded chap called
Paisley on the telly, who tentatively expressed that point of view.
He was safely able to tone down the rhetoric later on; in the face of the >>>> catastrophic
decline in influence of the Catholic Chirch in Irelalnd as a result of the >>>> various
scandals.
Strarting with Eamonn Casey the Bishop of Galway; who in 1992 was found to >>>> have been
supporting an illegitimate child out of Church Funds a.k.a Bishop Brennan in
"Father
Ted"
Its maybe no wonder "they" don't like it.
Then came Fr Brendan Smyth and all the pedo scandals. So that by that stage the
"anti-christ"
tag had become somewhat redundant
bb
One bunch of christians criticising another bunch of christians has generally
struck me as odious hypocrisy. I doubt there is an organised church without >>> such skeletons.
I doubt whether there is any human organisation without such
skeletons; we've seen it in the BBC, in Scouting, in swimming clubs,
in youth football training rCa.
Absolutely, but it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating this behaviour so reprehensible.
On 10 Dec 2025 13:25:37 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Dec 2025 at 12:26:47 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:While I accept it is unknowable and therefore unhelpful, it is quite simple to
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:56:09 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:45:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I have 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins
As far as I remember, that one mainly just points out that if you argue >>>>>>> that the universe must have a creator therefore god exists, this doesn't
help because you're arguing that god must exist without a creator, which
is less likely than the universe existing without a creator. I don't know
why he takes an entire book to say that.
Dawkins has kind of lost his influence by coming out with equally
stupid claims in other areas;
The above isn't a stupid claim though. If you argue that god exists
because the universe must have a creator,
I don't know any mainstream Christian denomination that makes that
argument.
I didn't say they did, although I'm surprised you haven't heard of
Saint Thomas Aquinas. But it's been a standard attempt at a proof
of the existence of god for longer than Christianity has existed.
but god can exist without a creator, the argument is self-contradictory. >>>>It is a stupid claim akin to arguing that there could not have been an >>>> original chicken as it would have to have come from an egg and that
egg could not have existed without the chicken being there.
I guess that's why Dawkins needed a whole book to explain it, if there
are people like you who somehow can't understand my one-sentence version. >>
get round Dawkins' objection by postulating that there is some form of
existence outside the known universe which is not subject (unlike the
universe) to the irreversibility and inexorability of time.
Yes, that is where Dawkins and others fall down; they try to argue
against the existence of God using human logic but those who believe
in God believe in one who is not constrained by human logic.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message news:irjijk99tuogfil9beoaui29fo2625d84c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:05:21 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would >>>>>> want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since
the criminal would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal >>> and no-one committing or contemplating the commission of a crime wants
to be arrested, tried and punished.
But there's no need to take those three words ["in his situation"]
literally, since they were not in the source you quoted.
-- Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
No. I also remember the one about "Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbour", which is what you were doing by traducing the
the words of the Gospel you cited. I am being charitable in taking the
line that you misinterpreted those words, especially by adding spurious
words of your own.
It always fascinates me that people who reject the Bible and show no
signs of ever having studied it feel totally competent to select
isolated quotations from it and give lectures about the meaning of
that quotation to people who believe in the Bible and use it
regularly.
Except Catholics don't use the Bible regularly at all, do they ?
Why would the Catholic Church, want to cut out the middleman ?
That's the priests job. To tell you lot what to believe; and keep you all
in line
Its interesting how its automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't
profess the Roman Catholic faith, but sees the whole thing for the racket that it undoubtedly is, are automatically assumed to know nothing
whatsoever about the Christian Faith .
When I have pointed out to you more than once on this Forum, that many
God fearing sincere Christians regard you, and your priests and your
Pope as being the Ant-Christ.
Actually doing the work of Satan to undermine true Christian belief.
So that when people are told "Blessed are the poor" and witness
the luxury in which Popes and Cardinals wallow in Rome (Thin
Cardinals are even more rare on the ground than are thin policemen)
they are immediately moved to say "what a load of hypocrites these
Christians are ! I'll have no part of them"
Ant-Christ !
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 18:35:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:00:47 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Men and women falling in love with each other is highly relevant to
the material world but physics does offer much of an explanation as to >>>> what that love is.
There is your fallacy; not affecting the material world is not the same as >>>being fully defined by science. Perhaps the greater part of human experience >>>is most definitely part of the material world despite not being amenable to >>>scientific study. Not only philosophy but most of psychology, sociology, >>>politics and economics is not really science but important for all that.
I'm not sure it is you who is getting confused, you ore me, but you
seem to be supporting my POV rather than Jon's.
Nope. You seem to have failed to understand what I said.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:28:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 18:35:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:00:47 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:I'm not sure it is you who is getting confused, you ore me, but you
Men and women falling in love with each other is highly relevant to
the material world but physics does offer much of an explanation as to >>>>> what that love is.
There is your fallacy; not affecting the material world is not the same as >>>>being fully defined by science. Perhaps the greater part of human experience
is most definitely part of the material world despite not being amenable to >>>>scientific study. Not only philosophy but most of psychology, sociology, >>>>politics and economics is not really science but important for all that. >>>
seem to be supporting my POV rather than Jon's.
Nope. You seem to have failed to understand what I said.
When I was a lecturer and my students failed to grasp a point I was
making, I started from the assumption that the shortcoming was in my explanation rather than in their comprehension skills so I would try
to present my point in a more understandable way. YMMV
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mpt68bFonsiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/12/2025 09:56 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mprsm6Fi7qiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 09/12/2025 11:02 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 09:57 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since the
criminal
would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal and no-one committing
or
contemplating the commission of a crime wants to be arrested, tried and punished.
It of course, implies no such thing
So that for instance, should a person say be tempted to be a thief
"Only steal from others, if you yourself are prepared to have others steal from
you in turn"
It is simply an exhortation to "think of the effect on the other person" >>> before performing any action. So that if indeed you found yourself in their >>> situation, in this instance the victim of the theft you are about to perform,
then how would you feel ?
This is just so elementary.
And no this isn't some sort of re-iteration of the Old Testament
exhortation of "An eye for an eye". It's just a further expression of the >>> so-called "Golden Rule"; which ideally should govern all behaviour.
"How would you feel if somebody else did this to you ?"
As I said, this is just so elementary.
You are just making your position worse.
So that according to you what does
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Actually mean ?
Can we expect a new edition of the Old and new Testaments:
"The Holy Bible according to and newly re-interpreted by William Bookcase"?
So because you're seemingly incapable of understanding Jesus Christ's message
with your "Taken literally" claim, in effect you're claiming that Jesus Christ
as quoted by the two Evangelists there, was quite simply "wrong", are you ?
No.
What I am saying, quite clearly, is that YOU were wrong in adding your own spurious
words into a quote from the Gospel, as you were correcting an obvious omission from
it.
It really is difficult to decide whether you arrogance outweighs your ignorance; or
whether it is the other way around.
I once heard (or read) an anecdotal quote from Lord Louis Mountbatten, who was
alleged
to have said (as part of a speech):
"As God once said - and I think, rightly - [then some quotation from the Bible]"
That was in fact, Field Marshal Montgomery. So yet another "faux pas" on your part .
Fair enough.
> hilarious because it obviously does not fall to humans - not even devout
religionists - to judge what God (within any religion) said. The only thing that
falls
to humans to judge is what other humans may have said or done.
And you committed the same (rather silly) faux pas by thinking that you could improve
on the words of the Gospel by adding in a few of your own in order to try to better
make your own point.
As I said, it was Montgomery.
And *you*, of course! :-)
Er no. It was only Mongomery who was reputed to have said it.
Although the context appears to be somewhat lacking, in all the citations.
And on the contrary, it was hilarious precisely because it was something >>> that nobody would doubt that Montgomery, given his air of supreme self
confidence and adherence to muscular Christianity*, might possibly
say. If only unwittingly.
Or even if only apocryphally.
.
Whereas Mountbatten's interests, so at least we are led to believe, lay
more in muscular midshipmen than in muscular Christianity.
And so that would be another "faux pas".
So that along with your not recognising the instance of "Golden Rule"
above, that's three "faux pas" you've committed in this one post alone.
Tell me, as you're clearly the expert on such matters do the French
have a special term for three such "faux pas" committed in
succession ?
Or do they just curl up with embarrassment, and quietly slink away ?
One can only live in hopes, I suppose.
Jesus Died for our Sins.
Please tell me
No thank you.
The depths of your ignorance are clearly beyond measure.
More snipping and editing so as to change the sense of what has been said?
But that assumes that anything you post, actually makes any sense to start with
So that according to you as posted above
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you -
with the three added words "in their situation "
So that's
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you in their situation"
necessarily implies that
quote:
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since the criminal
would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal and no-one committing
or contemplating the commission of a crime wants to be arrested, tried and punished.
:unquote
And I must be honest with you at this point. Over many years if not decades of postingStop wriggling and let's see how you do with the rest of the New
in Usenet, have I ever previously encountered such a hotch potch of incompremensible
gibberish; as what you've somehow managed to assemble and post there.
The whole point of the Golden Rule in all its formulations, is its essential reciprocity.
The
addition of the three words "in their situation" in no way alters that.
On 10 Dec 2025 at 15:33:40 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >wrote:
On 10 Dec 2025 15:01:33 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Dec 2025 at 14:51:36 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7586906354.08cfc8f3@uninhabited.net...
On 10 Dec 2025 at 14:02:02 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:irjijk99tuogfil9beoaui29fo2625d84c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:05:21 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since >>>>>>>> the criminal would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal
and no-one committing or contemplating the commission of a crime wants >>>>>>>> to be arrested, tried and punished.
But there's no need to take those three words ["in his situation"] >>>>>>>> literally, since they were not in the source you quoted.
? Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
No. I also remember the one about "Thou shalt not bear false witness >>>>>>>> against thy neighbour", which is what you were doing by traducing the >>>>>>>> the words of the Gospel you cited. I am being charitable in taking the >>>>>>>> line that you misinterpreted those words, especially by adding spurious
words of your own.
It always fascinates me that people who reject the Bible and show no >>>>>>> signs of ever having studied it feel totally competent to select >>>>>>> isolated quotations from it and give lectures about the meaning of >>>>>>> that quotation to people who believe in the Bible and use it
regularly.
Except Catholics don't use the Bible regularly at all, do they ?
Why would the Catholic Church, want to cut out the middleman ?
That's the priests job. To tell you lot what to believe; and keep you all
in line
Its interesting how its automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't >>>>>> profess the Roman Catholic faith, but sees the whole thing for the racket
that it undoubtedly is, are automatically assumed to know nothing
whatsoever about the Christian Faith .
When I have pointed out to you more than once on this Forum, that many >>>>>> God fearing sincere Christians regard you, and your priests and your >>>>>> Pope as being the Ant-Christ.
Actually doing the work of Satan to undermine true Christian belief. >>>>>>
So that when people are told "Blessed are the poor" and witness
the luxury in which Popes and Cardinals wallow in Rome (Thin
Cardinals are even more rare on the ground than are thin policemen) >>>>>> they are immediately moved to say "what a load of hypocrites these >>>>>> Christians are ! I'll have no part of them"
Ant-Christ !
Yes, ISTR in the '70s there was a very reasonable and fair-minded chap called
Paisley on the telly, who tentatively expressed that point of view.
He was safely able to tone down the rhetoric later on; in the face of the >>>> catastrophic
decline in influence of the Catholic Chirch in Irelalnd as a result of the >>>> various
scandals.
Strarting with Eamonn Casey the Bishop of Galway; who in 1992 was found to >>>> have been
supporting an illegitimate child out of Church Funds a.k.a Bishop Brennan in
"Father
Ted"
Its maybe no wonder "they" don't like it.
Then came Fr Brendan Smyth and all the pedo scandals. So that by that stage the
"anti-christ"
tag had become somewhat redundant
bb
One bunch of christians criticising another bunch of christians has generally
struck me as odious hypocrisy. I doubt there is an organised church without >>> such skeletons.
I doubt whether there is any human organisation without such
skeletons; we've seen it in the BBC, in Scouting, in swimming clubs,
in youth football training rCa.
Absolutely, but it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and >moral authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating >this behaviour so reprehensible.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:qu3jjk91lnm9576ssit6meoq0mrgen8r7l@4ax.com...
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 14:02:02 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:irjijk99tuogfil9beoaui29fo2625d84c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:05:21 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would >>>>>>>> want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since >>>>>the criminal would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal >>>>>and no-one committing or contemplating the commission of a crime wants >>>>>to be arrested, tried and punished.
But there's no need to take those three words ["in his situation"] >>>>>literally, since they were not in the source you quoted.
?Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
No. I also remember the one about "Thou shalt not bear false witness >>>>>against thy neighbour", which is what you were doing by traducing the >>>>>the words of the Gospel you cited. I am being charitable in taking the >>>>>line that you misinterpreted those words, especially by adding spurious >>>>>words of your own.
It always fascinates me that people who reject the Bible and show no
signs of ever having studied it feel totally competent to select
isolated quotations from it and give lectures about the meaning of
that quotation to people who believe in the Bible and use it
regularly.
Except Catholics don't use the Bible regularly at all, do they ?
Again you do not let your abysmal lack of knowledge of the Catholic
Church prevent you from making statements about it. Every time a
Catholic attend Mass they hear either 3 or 4 passages from different
parts of the Bible and usually a homily addressing at least one of
those passages.
Passages carefully selected by the priest ! So that's 3 or four
carefully selected passages out or what, 2260 pages ?
And what's the betting the same passages keep coming up, again
and again ?
Why would the Catholic Church, want to cut out the middleman ?
That's the priests job. To tell you lot what to believe; and keep you all >>>in line
You really do have a weird idea about how the Catholic Church operates
nowadays.
Its interesting how its automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't >>>profess the Roman Catholic faith, but sees the whole thing for the racket >>>that it undoubtedly is, are automatically assumed to know nothing >>>whatsoever about the Christian Faith .
When I have pointed out to you more than once on this Forum, that many >>>God fearing sincere Christians regard you, and your priests and your
Pope as being the Ant-Christ.
Actually doing the work of Satan to undermine true Christian belief.
So that when people are told "Blessed are the poor"
QED concerning people who reject the Bible not having the slightest
compunction in pontificating about selected verses from it.
Who is rejecting the Bible ?
When has criticising tne Catholic Church
ever been seen as being equivalent to rejecting the Bible ?
Except by the Catholic Church itself that is.
As a matter of interest do you ever mention Protestants at all ?
Or
are they all just lumped in with all the other pagans, communists,
and all of the other bogey men ?
bb
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:23:33 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 17:47:42 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
David Chalmers and his hard problem.
You could've just asked if you didn't understand the phrase "does not >>>>>affect the material world". Although admittedly it may not have helped >>>>>much since I don't know if I could make that any more simple than it >>>>>already is.
Perhaps I'm being unwittingly obtuse here but it would really help me
if you could explain the difference between the Hard Problem affecting >>>> the material world and religious belief affecting it.
Unless you want to claim it is doubtful that conscious beings exist in >>>the material world, the "Hard Problem" clearly affects it.
The Hard Problem and the supernatural are both unamenable to science
at this stage and nobody has any idea yet how they could be made
amenable in the future.
Ok?
Religious *beliefs* clearly also affect the world, but belief is not >>>supernatural. The things that are *believed in* might be supernatural, >>>but those thigns are not the belief itself.
You seem to be falling into an a priori fallacy there - you are
assuming that the supernatural world does not affect the material
world.
Oh. You've forgotten what my original claim was.
That will make your--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
attempts to argue against it somewhat futile.
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:28:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 18:35:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:00:47 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:I'm not sure it is you who is getting confused, you ore me, but you
Men and women falling in love with each other is highly relevant to >>>>>> the material world but physics does offer much of an explanation as to >>>>>> what that love is.
There is your fallacy; not affecting the material world is not the same as >>>>>being fully defined by science. Perhaps the greater part of human experience
is most definitely part of the material world despite not being amenable to
scientific study. Not only philosophy but most of psychology, sociology, >>>>>politics and economics is not really science but important for all that. >>>>
seem to be supporting my POV rather than Jon's.
Nope. You seem to have failed to understand what I said.
When I was a lecturer and my students failed to grasp a point I was
making, I started from the assumption that the shortcoming was in my
explanation rather than in their comprehension skills so I would try
to present my point in a more understandable way. YMMV
Ok, but I'm not a lecturer and I'm not getting paid to educate you.
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 12:33:29 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:23:33 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Religious *beliefs* clearly also affect the world, but belief is not >>>>supernatural. The things that are *believed in* might be supernatural, >>>>but those thigns are not the belief itself.
You seem to be falling into an a priori fallacy there - you are
assuming that the supernatural world does not affect the material
world.
Oh. You've forgotten what my original claim was.
It would be rather careless of me to forget it when it is printed just
a few posts above. It might help us both however to repeat exactly
what you did say:
<quote>
If "the supernatural" existed and were able to affect the "material
world" in any way, it would by definition be a part of physics.
If it exists and is not able to affect the material world in any way,
then you can believe what you like about it since it is irrelevant,
but the chances of your beliefs being correct would be infinitesimally
small since by definition they would be completely baseless.
</quote>
What you have not explained is why that claim applies to those seeking
to figure out the unknown (supernatural) from a religious perspective
and not to those seeking to figure out the unknown from a wider
philosophical (secular) perspective.
You did ramble a bit about about beliefs not being supernatural but
the things believed in maybe being supernatural but that didn't
explain anything to me, it just came across as word salad.
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 16:35:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:28:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 18:35:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:00:47 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure it is you who is getting confused, you ore me, but youMen and women falling in love with each other is highly relevant to >>>>>>> the material world but physics does offer much of an explanation as to >>>>>>> what that love is.
There is your fallacy; not affecting the material world is not the same as
being fully defined by science. Perhaps the greater part of human experience
is most definitely part of the material world despite not being amenable to
scientific study. Not only philosophy but most of psychology, sociology, >>>>>>politics and economics is not really science but important for all that. >>>>>
seem to be supporting my POV rather than Jon's.
Nope. You seem to have failed to understand what I said.
When I was a lecturer and my students failed to grasp a point I was
making, I started from the assumption that the shortcoming was in my
explanation rather than in their comprehension skills so I would try
to present my point in a more understandable way. YMMV
Ok, but I'm not a lecturer and I'm not getting paid to educate you.
Fair enough though I have kept up the same practice in retirement
without payment. I've always had this idea that a point is not worth
making unless people understand it.
On 10/12/2025 02:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpt68bFonsiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/12/2025 09:56 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mprsm6Fi7qiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 09/12/2025 11:02 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 09:57 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since the
criminal
would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal and no-one
committing
or
contemplating the commission of a crime wants to be arrested, tried and
punished.
It of course, implies no such thing
So that for instance, should a person say be tempted to be a thief
"Only steal from others, if you yourself are prepared to have others steal from
you in turn"
It is simply an exhortation to "think of the effect on the other person" >>>> before performing any action. So that if indeed you found yourself in their
situation, in this instance the victim of the theft you are about to perform,
then how would you feel ?
This is just so elementary.
And no this isn't some sort of re-iteration of the Old Testament
exhortation of "An eye for an eye". It's just a further expression of the >>>> so-called "Golden Rule"; which ideally should govern all behaviour.
"How would you feel if somebody else did this to you ?"
As I said, this is just so elementary.
You are just making your position worse.
So that according to you what does
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Actually mean ?
Check that with someone qualified to undertake religious instruction.
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 16:04:26 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:qu3jjk91lnm9576ssit6meoq0mrgen8r7l@4ax.com...
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 14:02:02 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:irjijk99tuogfil9beoaui29fo2625d84c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:05:21 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since >>>>>>the criminal would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal >>>>>>and no-one committing or contemplating the commission of a crime wants >>>>>>to be arrested, tried and punished.
But there's no need to take those three words ["in his situation"] >>>>>>literally, since they were not in the source you quoted.
?Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
No. I also remember the one about "Thou shalt not bear false witness >>>>>>against thy neighbour", which is what you were doing by traducing the >>>>>>the words of the Gospel you cited. I am being charitable in taking the >>>>>>line that you misinterpreted those words, especially by adding spurious >>>>>>words of your own.
It always fascinates me that people who reject the Bible and show no >>>>> signs of ever having studied it feel totally competent to select
isolated quotations from it and give lectures about the meaning of
that quotation to people who believe in the Bible and use it
regularly.
Except Catholics don't use the Bible regularly at all, do they ?
Again you do not let your abysmal lack of knowledge of the Catholic
Church prevent you from making statements about it. Every time a
Catholic attend Mass they hear either 3 or 4 passages from different
parts of the Bible and usually a homily addressing at least one of
those passages.
Passages carefully selected by the priest ! So that's 3 or four
carefully selected passages out or what, 2260 pages ?
And what's the betting the same passages keep coming up, again
and again ?
Why do you persist in demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing
about this stuff?
You really should learn to do a bit of Googling and avoid making such
an idiot of yourself.
Why would the Catholic Church, want to cut out the middleman ?
That's the priests job. To tell you lot what to believe; and keep you all >>>>in line
You really do have a weird idea about how the Catholic Church operates
nowadays.
Its interesting how its automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't >>>>profess the Roman Catholic faith, but sees the whole thing for the racket >>>>that it undoubtedly is, are automatically assumed to know nothing >>>>whatsoever about the Christian Faith .
When I have pointed out to you more than once on this Forum, that many >>>>God fearing sincere Christians regard you, and your priests and your >>>>Pope as being the Ant-Christ.
Actually doing the work of Satan to undermine true Christian belief.
So that when people are told "Blessed are the poor"
QED concerning people who reject the Bible not having the slightest
compunction in pontificating about selected verses from it.
Who is rejecting the Bible ?
Are you saying *you* don't reject the Bible? If not, perhaps you would
care to enlighten us as to how much study you have put into it.
When has criticising tne Catholic Church
ever been seen as being equivalent to rejecting the Bible ?
Except by the Catholic Church itself that is.
As a matter of interest do you ever mention Protestants at all ?
Yes, regularly. You really should try to keep up.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mn8jjkhdu9jbapi76flk7kpbpsb9uslhjv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 16:04:26 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qu3jjk91lnm9576ssit6meoq0mrgen8r7l@4ax.com...
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 14:02:02 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:irjijk99tuogfil9beoaui29fo2625d84c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 21:05:21 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpr8l9FeuvjU2@mid.individual.net...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since >>>>>>> the criminal would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal
and no-one committing or contemplating the commission of a crime wants >>>>>>> to be arrested, tried and punished.
But there's no need to take those three words ["in his situation"] >>>>>>> literally, since they were not in the source you quoted.
?Jesus Christ
Luke 6:31 Matthew 7:12
Presumably that was another week you were off sick.
No. I also remember the one about "Thou shalt not bear false witness >>>>>>> against thy neighbour", which is what you were doing by traducing the >>>>>>> the words of the Gospel you cited. I am being charitable in taking the >>>>>>> line that you misinterpreted those words, especially by adding spurious >>>>>>> words of your own.
It always fascinates me that people who reject the Bible and show no >>>>>> signs of ever having studied it feel totally competent to select
isolated quotations from it and give lectures about the meaning of >>>>>> that quotation to people who believe in the Bible and use it
regularly.
Except Catholics don't use the Bible regularly at all, do they ?
Again you do not let your abysmal lack of knowledge of the Catholic
Church prevent you from making statements about it. Every time a
Catholic attend Mass they hear either 3 or 4 passages from different
parts of the Bible and usually a homily addressing at least one of
those passages.
Passages carefully selected by the priest ! So that's 3 or four
carefully selected passages out or what, 2260 pages ?
And what's the betting the same passages keep coming up, again
and again ?
Why do you persist in demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing
about this stuff?
You really should learn to do a bit of Googling and avoid making such
an idiot of yourself.
So that
"Passages carefully selected by the priest ! So that's 3 or four
carefully selected passages out or what, 2260 pages ?"
is wrong is it ?
Only 2260 pages is what is claimed for the New Catholic Bible on the
Web.
Why would the Catholic Church, want to cut out the middleman ?
That's the priests job. To tell you lot what to believe; and keep you all >>>>> in line
You really do have a weird idea about how the Catholic Church operates >>>> nowadays.
Its interesting how its automatically assumed that anyone who doesn't >>>>> profess the Roman Catholic faith, but sees the whole thing for the racket >>>>> that it undoubtedly is, are automatically assumed to know nothing
whatsoever about the Christian Faith .
When I have pointed out to you more than once on this Forum, that many >>>>> God fearing sincere Christians regard you, and your priests and your >>>>> Pope as being the Ant-Christ.
Actually doing the work of Satan to undermine true Christian belief. >>>>>
So that when people are told "Blessed are the poor"
QED concerning people who reject the Bible not having the slightest
compunction in pontificating about selected verses from it.
Who is rejecting the Bible ?
Are you saying *you* don't reject the Bible? If not, perhaps you would
care to enlighten us as to how much study you have put into it.
You don't have a monopoly on Christianity; although quite obviously
you still think that you do.
You also seem to have forgotten that the days when you Catholics
could impose your will on other people, and insist that they
dance to your tune, are long over
To say nothing of the hold you had over poor unquestioning
believers who did what your priests told them, for fear of
eternal damnation.
And yet despite 50 years now of scandals which would have anyone else in sackloth and ashes begging forgiveness , here you all are, still strutting about like cocks of the walk, as if nothing had happened
My religious beliefs are my own business. The fact that you choose to
flaunt yours to all and sundry - the fact that you choose to be beholden
to priests, bishops, popes and anyone else able to climb up that greasy
pole in Rome is your problem alone, not mine
But has absolutely nothing whatsover to do with Jesus Christ.
When has criticising tne Catholic Church
ever been seen as being equivalent to rejecting the Bible ?
Except by the Catholic Church itself that is.
As a matter of interest do you ever mention Protestants at all ?
Yes, regularly. You really should try to keep up.
Where ?
bb
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mptls4Fr9idU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/12/2025 02:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpt68bFonsiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/12/2025 09:56 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mprsm6Fi7qiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 09/12/2025 11:02 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 09:57 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since the
criminal
would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal and no-one
committing
or
contemplating the commission of a crime wants to be arrested, tried and
punished.
It of course, implies no such thing
So that for instance, should a person say be tempted to be a thief
"Only steal from others, if you yourself are prepared to have others steal from
you in turn"
It is simply an exhortation to "think of the effect on the other person" >>>>> before performing any action. So that if indeed you found yourself in their
situation, in this instance the victim of the theft you are about to perform,
then how would you feel ?
This is just so elementary.
And no this isn't some sort of re-iteration of the Old Testament
exhortation of "An eye for an eye". It's just a further expression of the >>>>> so-called "Golden Rule"; which ideally should govern all behaviour.
"How would you feel if somebody else did this to you ?"
As I said, this is just so elementary.
You are just making your position worse.
So that according to you what does
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Actually mean ?
Check that with someone qualified to undertake religious instruction.
So that you're totally incapable of supporting your own argument.
Given which it would clearly be a complete waste of anyones time
to read any more of your nonsense
One bunch of christians criticising another bunch of christians has generally struck me as odious hypocrisy. I doubt there is an organised church without such skeletons.
On 10/12/2025 07:14 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mptls4Fr9idU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/12/2025 02:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpt68bFonsiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/12/2025 09:56 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mprsm6Fi7qiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 09/12/2025 11:02 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 09:57 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since the
criminal
would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal and no-one
committing
or
contemplating the commission of a crime wants to be arrested, tried and
punished.
It of course, implies no such thing
So that for instance, should a person say be tempted to be a thief >>>>>>
"Only steal from others, if you yourself are prepared to have others steal from
you in turn"
It is simply an exhortation to "think of the effect on the other person" >>>>>> before performing any action. So that if indeed you found yourself in their
situation, in this instance the victim of the theft you are about to perform,
then how would you feel ?
This is just so elementary.
And no this isn't some sort of re-iteration of the Old Testament
exhortation of "An eye for an eye". It's just a further expression of the
so-called "Golden Rule"; which ideally should govern all behaviour. >>>>>> "How would you feel if somebody else did this to you ?"
As I said, this is just so elementary.
You are just making your position worse.
So that according to you what does
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Actually mean ?
Check that with someone qualified to undertake religious instruction.
So that you're totally incapable of supporting your own argument.
Given which it would clearly be a complete waste of anyones time
to read any more of your nonsense
That was a pretty good wriggle.
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
[...]
Unless you continue to defend your religion
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust.
That assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM.
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example.
In just this current thread alone:
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>>>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>>>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>>>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>>>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>>>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>>>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>>>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>>>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so
easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"...
So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual
errors that people make and defending that about which they are making >>>> the factual errors.
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if
you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction
of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and
realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It
was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral
authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating
this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion
at every opportunity.
Not letting up with your constant lying I see. You also said in that post:
"what we must do is face up to those wrongs, learn from them and do
our utmost not to make the same mistakes again. I think the Church
has done well in that regard - it is now, for example, classed as
world best in its child protection measures."
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 11:54:00 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
[...]
Unless you continue to defend your religion
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust.
That assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM.
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example.
In just this current thread alone:
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>>>>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>>>>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>>>>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>>>>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>>>>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>>>>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>>>>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>>>>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so >>>>>>> easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"...
So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual
errors that people make and defending that about which they are making >>>>> the factual errors.
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if
you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction
of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and
realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It
was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral
authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating
this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion
at every opportunity.
Not letting up with your constant lying I see. You also said in that post:
"what we must do is face up to those wrongs, learn from them and do
our utmost not to make the same mistakes again. I think the Church
has done well in that regard - it is now, for example, classed as
world best in its child protection measures."
Perhaps you could paint out anything in that which is not a simple
statement of fact correcting what someone else has posted.
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 11:54:00 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
[...]
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example.Unless you continue to defend your religionThat assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM. >>>>>>>>
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust. >>>>>>>>>
In just this current thread alone:
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>>>>>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>>>>>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>>>>>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>>>>>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>>>>>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>>>>>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>>>>>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>>>>>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so >>>>>>>> easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>>>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"...
So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual >>>>>> errors that people make and defending that about which they are making >>>>>> the factual errors.
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if >>>> you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction
of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and
realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It
was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral
authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating
this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion
at every opportunity.
Not letting up with your constant lying I see. You also said in that post: >>>
"what we must do is face up to those wrongs, learn from them and do
our utmost not to make the same mistakes again. I think the Church
has done well in that regard - it is now, for example, classed as
world best in its child protection measures."
Perhaps you could paint out anything in that which is not a simple
statement of fact correcting what someone else has posted.
Why would I want to do that? I've pointed out many occasions in this
one thread alone where you have "defended your religion". Even if it
were true that everything you said was a "factual correction", you
didn't say "factual corrections don't count" and it would have been >nonsensical if you had.
On 11 Dec 2025 at 13:41:09 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6s7ljk9cth4p0orvgbdrsrhts5tisaiu43@4ax.com...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:33:06 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
[...]
So that's
86.5 percent of the Old Testament
45.1 percent of the non-Gospel New Testament
10.2 percent of the Gospels
28.5 percent of the entire New Testament
that Catholics never ever get to hear about at all.
Err, no - the figures are for what they hear just at Mass. Do try to
keep up.
These are the figures for Canadians
quote
Sixty-five percent of respondents reported that they have a
physical copy of the Bible at home. When broken down into
the three traditions, 93 percent of Evangelicals, 72 percent
of mainline Protestants, and 52 percent of Roman Catholics
reported having a Bible in book form at home.
[...]
A full 76 percent of Roman Catholics reported that they never
or hardly ever read their copy of the Bible at home. For
mainline Protestants the figure is 70 percent, and for
Evangelicals it is 32 percent.
:unquote
https://www.cardus.ca/research/faith-communities/reports/the-bible-and-us-canadians-and-their-relationship-with-scripture/
So that while 52 percent have a Bible at home, 72 percent of that 52 percent >> never or hardly ever read it.
So that makes only 9.44 percent of Canadian Catholics who ever read
the Bible at all !
bb
The figure doesn't seem wildly different for protestants - what's your point?
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 13:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 12:44:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 11:54:00 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual >>>>>>>>>> errors that people make and defending that about which they are making
In just this current thread alone:On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example. >>>>>>>>>>>Unless you continue to defend your religionThat assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>>>>>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM. >>>>>>>>>>>>
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so >>>>>>>>>>>> easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>>>>>>>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"... >>>>>>>>>>
the factual errors.
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if >>>>>>>> you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction >>>>>>>> of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and >>>>>>>> realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It >>>>>>>> was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral >>>>>>>> authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating >>>>>>>> this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion >>>>>>>> at every opportunity.
Not letting up with your constant lying I see. You also said in that post:
"what we must do is face up to those wrongs, learn from them and do >>>>>>> our utmost not to make the same mistakes again. I think the Church >>>>>>> has done well in that regard - it is now, for example, classed as >>>>>>> world best in its child protection measures."
Perhaps you could paint out anything in that which is not a simple >>>>>> statement of fact correcting what someone else has posted.
Why would I want to do that? I've pointed out many occasions in this >>>>>one thread alone where you have "defended your religion". Even if it >>>>>were true that everything you said was a "factual correction", you >>>>>didn't say "factual corrections don't count" and it would have been >>>>>nonsensical if you had.
Invoking Godwin's Law, if someone posted that the Nazis slaughtered 12
You lost.
So Godwin's Law is something else that you don't quite grasp. Or maybe
you see it as a convenient excuse for getting out of your badly formed
claim.
How ironic.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:6194288685.38d81064@uninhabited.net...
On 11 Dec 2025 at 13:41:09 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6s7ljk9cth4p0orvgbdrsrhts5tisaiu43@4ax.com...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:33:06 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
[...]
So that's
86.5 percent of the Old Testament
45.1 percent of the non-Gospel New Testament
10.2 percent of the Gospels
28.5 percent of the entire New Testament
that Catholics never ever get to hear about at all.
Err, no - the figures are for what they hear just at Mass. Do try to
keep up.
These are the figures for Canadians
quote
Sixty-five percent of respondents reported that they have a
physical copy of the Bible at home. When broken down into
the three traditions, 93 percent of Evangelicals, 72 percent
of mainline Protestants, and 52 percent of Roman Catholics
reported having a Bible in book form at home.
[...]
A full 76 percent of Roman Catholics reported that they never
or hardly ever read their copy of the Bible at home. For
mainline Protestants the figure is 70 percent, and for
Evangelicals it is 32 percent.
:unquote
https://www.cardus.ca/research/faith-communities/reports/the-bible-and-us-canadians-and-their-relationship-with-scripture/
So that while 52 percent have a Bible at home, 72 percent of that 52 percent
never or hardly ever read it.
So that makes only 9.44 percent of Canadian Catholics who ever read
the Bible at all !
bb
The figure doesn't seem wildly different for protestants - what's your point?
As we're not discussing protestants, what's yours ?
bb
On 11 Dec 2025 at 15:05:35 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:6194288685.38d81064@uninhabited.net...
On 11 Dec 2025 at 13:41:09 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6s7ljk9cth4p0orvgbdrsrhts5tisaiu43@4ax.com...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:33:06 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>> wrote:
[...]
So that's
86.5 percent of the Old Testament
45.1 percent of the non-Gospel New Testament
10.2 percent of the Gospels
28.5 percent of the entire New Testament
that Catholics never ever get to hear about at all.
Err, no - the figures are for what they hear just at Mass. Do try to >>>>> keep up.
These are the figures for Canadians
quote
Sixty-five percent of respondents reported that they have a
physical copy of the Bible at home. When broken down into
the three traditions, 93 percent of Evangelicals, 72 percent
of mainline Protestants, and 52 percent of Roman Catholics
reported having a Bible in book form at home.
[...]
A full 76 percent of Roman Catholics reported that they never
or hardly ever read their copy of the Bible at home. For
mainline Protestants the figure is 70 percent, and for
Evangelicals it is 32 percent.
:unquote
https://www.cardus.ca/research/faith-communities/reports/the-bible-and-us-canadians-and-their-relationship-with-scripture/
So that while 52 percent have a Bible at home, 72 percent of that 52 percent
never or hardly ever read it.
So that makes only 9.44 percent of Canadian Catholics who ever read
the Bible at all !
bb
The figure doesn't seem wildly different for protestants - what's your point?
As we're not discussing protestants, what's yours ?
bb
Well actually I am discussing protestants.
On 11/12/2025 10:11 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpua55Fuea4U2@mid.individual.net...
On 10/12/2025 07:14 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mptls4Fr9idU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/12/2025 02:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:So that you're totally incapable of supporting your own argument.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpt68bFonsiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/12/2025 09:56 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mprsm6Fi7qiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 09/12/2025 11:02 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 09:57 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since the
criminal
would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal and no-one
committing
or
contemplating the commission of a crime wants to be arrested, tried and
punished.
It of course, implies no such thing
So that for instance, should a person say be tempted to be a thief >>>>>>>>
"Only steal from others, if you yourself are prepared to have others steal from
you in turn"
It is simply an exhortation to "think of the effect on the other person"
before performing any action. So that if indeed you found yourself in their
situation, in this instance the victim of the theft you are about to perform,
then how would you feel ?
This is just so elementary.
And no this isn't some sort of re-iteration of the Old Testament >>>>>>>> exhortation of "An eye for an eye". It's just a further expression of the
so-called "Golden Rule"; which ideally should govern all behaviour. >>>>>>>> "How would you feel if somebody else did this to you ?"
As I said, this is just so elementary.
You are just making your position worse.
So that according to you what does
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Actually mean ?
Check that with someone qualified to undertake religious instruction. >>>>
Given which it would clearly be a complete waste of anyones time
to read any more of your nonsense
That was a pretty good wriggle.
Not really.
Suggesting that somebody should check something out with "someone
qualified to undertake religious instruction", is simply an admission
on your part, that you simply haven't had a clue as to what you
were talking about, all along;
Not at all.
It simply means that I am not so arrogant *some* posters who spout continuously on
esoteric subjects of which they know little.
I am well aware of the level of my own lack of knowledge in both the subject and the
way inn which it should be imparted.
and have finally realised you'd got
so far out of your depth, that simple lies and evasions will no
longer suffice. .
Not that that's anything new for you, of course.
You really should apply at the Charm School faculty office for a refund of your tuition
fees. Perhaps 100%.
On 11/12/2025 10:11 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpua55Fuea4U2@mid.individual.net...
On 10/12/2025 07:14 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mptls4Fr9idU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/12/2025 02:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:So that you're totally incapable of supporting your own argument.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpt68bFonsiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/12/2025 09:56 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mprsm6Fi7qiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 09/12/2025 11:02 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 09:57 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since the
criminal
would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal and no-one
committing
or
contemplating the commission of a crime wants to be arrested, tried and
punished.
It of course, implies no such thing
So that for instance, should a person say be tempted to be a thief >>>>>>>>
"Only steal from others, if you yourself are prepared to have others steal from
you in turn"
It is simply an exhortation to "think of the effect on the other person"
before performing any action. So that if indeed you found yourself in their
situation, in this instance the victim of the theft you are about to perform,
then how would you feel ?
This is just so elementary.
And no this isn't some sort of re-iteration of the Old Testament >>>>>>>> exhortation of "An eye for an eye". It's just a further expression of the
so-called "Golden Rule"; which ideally should govern all behaviour. >>>>>>>> "How would you feel if somebody else did this to you ?"
As I said, this is just so elementary.
You are just making your position worse.
So that according to you what does
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Actually mean ?
Check that with someone qualified to undertake religious instruction. >>>>
Given which it would clearly be a complete waste of anyones time
to read any more of your nonsense
That was a pretty good wriggle.
Not really.
Suggesting that somebody should check something out with "someone
qualified to undertake religious instruction", is simply an admission
on your part, that you simply haven't had a clue as to what you
were talking about, all along;
Not at all.
It simply means that I am not so arrogant *some* posters who spout continuously on
esoteric subjects of which they know little.
I am well aware of the level of my own lack of knowledge in both the subject and the
way inn which it should be imparted. If I tried, you would complain about that. So
which is it?
and have finally realised you'd got
so far out of your depth, that simple lies and evasions will no
longer suffice. .
Not that that's anything new for you, of course.
You really should apply at the Charm School faculty office for a refund of your tuition
fees. Perhaps 100%.
On 11/12/2025 09:23 am, The Todal wrote:
On 10/12/2025 12:05, JNugent wrote:
You have deliberately failed - for your own reasons and even though
reminded of the distinction in the post to which you were responding
- to distinguish the Church from individuals within it. Indeed, from
all people who - and this includes you as well as me - are far from
perfect.
You might also say that one should distinguish the Nazi Pary from
naughty individuals within it. Of course. Focus on the good, not the
bad. Maybe it makes you feel better about your own sins - you say you
aren't perfect and maybe your conscience is troubling you, but you
should speak for yourself.
The National Socialist Workers' Party existed to do things which were objectively bad, even if they were not recognised as such within the
party..
No Christian church exists for that purpose - quite the opposite.
Obviously it isn't just the Catholics who cover up abuse. But it
mainly seems to be Christians. The fact that sometimes police officers
cover up abuse by their own colleagues does not lessen the scandal of
churches covering up abuse by priests.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/14/friendship-with-prince-
charles-made-paedophile-bishop-peter-ball-impregnable
The disgraced paedophile bishop Peter Ball made himself apparently
rCLimpregnablerCY by cultivating friendships with Prince Charles and other >> senior establishment figures who later rushed to support him when he
was accused of sexual abuse, according to a BBC documentary.
Ball, the former bishop of both Lewes and Gloucester who died last
year, boasted of his role as rCLcounsellor to royaltyrCY, Cliff James, one >> of his victims, says in the programme. He cultivated friendships with
Margaret Thatcher, peers of the realm, senior judges and headmasters
of leading public schools.
The former bishop was investigated by police in the early 1990s, which
resulted in a police caution. In 2015, he was convicted of sexual
offences against 17 teenagers and young men and jailed for 32 months.
He was released in February 2017 after serving half his sentence.
unquote
Which bit of Catholic - or Christian - theology or teachings forced him
to do any of that?
Please be precise in your answer.
OTOH, which
Then clearly, "everybody" did not know about it.
https://hls.harvard.edu/today/panel-on-spotlight-film-explores-priest-
sex-abuse-scandal-institutional-cover-up-and-advocacy-for-victims/
The film rCLSpotlightrCY focuses on the dogged pursuit by Boston Globe
reporters to expose the Catholic ChurchrCOs cover-up of the sexual abuse
of children by Boston priests. But there is much more to the story, as
evidenced by a wide-ranging panel discussion of the movie last week at
Harvard Law School that touched on legal issues, secrets and shame,
and even a potential lawsuit against the filmmakers.
rCLIt was the worst-kept secret in Boston that these priests were
molesting children. Everybody seemed to know but no one seemed to do
anything about it.rCY
You cannot seriously say that something was being covered up if everbody knew about.
The quote was hyperbolic, as I am sure will agree.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:04:57 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 10/12/2025 18:09, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 16:35:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:28:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 18:35:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:00:47 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Men and women falling in love with each other is highly relevant to >>>>>>>>> the material world but physics does offer much of an explanation as to
what that love is.
There is your fallacy; not affecting the material world is not the same as
being fully defined by science. Perhaps the greater part of human experience
is most definitely part of the material world despite not being amenable to
scientific study. Not only philosophy but most of psychology, sociology,
politics and economics is not really science but important for all that.
I'm not sure it is you who is getting confused, you ore me, but you >>>>>>> seem to be supporting my POV rather than Jon's.
Nope. You seem to have failed to understand what I said.
When I was a lecturer and my students failed to grasp a point I was
making, I started from the assumption that the shortcoming was in my >>>>> explanation rather than in their comprehension skills so I would try >>>>> to present my point in a more understandable way. YMMV
Ok, but I'm not a lecturer and I'm not getting paid to educate you.
Fair enough though I have kept up the same practice in retirement
without payment. I've always had this idea that a point is not worth
making unless people understand it.
When you were a lecturer did you find that your students responded well
to "itch, itch, scratch,scratch" or did they think rather less of you,
and of the other points you were making?
It never came up because unlike you, I didn't bring religion into
subjects where it had no relevance.
Presumably your lecturing skills were self-taught?
As usual, you make wild assumptions based on nothing but your own
bigotry.
And no, I was not self-taught though I guess my Masters degree could
be argued as self-taught as it was a Masters by Research.
On 11/12/2025 10:19, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:04:57 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 10/12/2025 18:09, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 16:35:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:28:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 18:35:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:00:47 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Men and women falling in love with each other is highly relevant to >>>>>>>>>> the material world but physics does offer much of an explanation as to
what that love is.
There is your fallacy; not affecting the material world is not the same as
being fully defined by science. Perhaps the greater part of human experience
is most definitely part of the material world despite not being amenable to
scientific study. Not only philosophy but most of psychology, sociology,
politics and economics is not really science but important for all that.
I'm not sure it is you who is getting confused, you ore me, but you >>>>>>>> seem to be supporting my POV rather than Jon's.
Nope. You seem to have failed to understand what I said.
When I was a lecturer and my students failed to grasp a point I was >>>>>> making, I started from the assumption that the shortcoming was in my >>>>>> explanation rather than in their comprehension skills so I would try >>>>>> to present my point in a more understandable way. YMMV
Ok, but I'm not a lecturer and I'm not getting paid to educate you.
Fair enough though I have kept up the same practice in retirement
without payment. I've always had this idea that a point is not worth
making unless people understand it.
When you were a lecturer did you find that your students responded well
to "itch, itch, scratch,scratch" or did they think rather less of you,
and of the other points you were making?
It never came up because unlike you, I didn't bring religion into
subjects where it had no relevance.
Presumably your lecturing skills were self-taught?
As usual, you make wild assumptions based on nothing but your own
bigotry.
And no, I was not self-taught though I guess my Masters degree could
be argued as self-taught as it was a Masters by Research.
So you never obtained any sort of teacher training qualification but
were sufficiently confident of your abilities to place your trust in a
gown and mortar board and an air of omniscience. I know the type.
On 11/12/2025 14:43, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2025 09:23 am, The Todal wrote:
On 10/12/2025 12:05, JNugent wrote:
You have deliberately failed - for your own reasons and even though
reminded of the distinction in the post to which you were responding
- to distinguish the Church from individuals within it. Indeed, from
all people who - and this includes you as well as me - are far from
perfect.
You might also say that one should distinguish the Nazi Pary from
naughty individuals within it. Of course. Focus on the good, not the
bad. Maybe it makes you feel better about your own sins - you say you
aren't perfect and maybe your conscience is troubling you, but you
should speak for yourself.
The National Socialist Workers' Party existed to do things which were
objectively bad, even if they were not recognised as such within the
party..
No Christian church exists for that purpose - quite the opposite.
Obviously it isn't just the Catholics who cover up abuse. But it
mainly seems to be Christians. The fact that sometimes police
officers cover up abuse by their own colleagues does not lessen the
scandal of churches covering up abuse by priests.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/14/friendship-with-prince-
charles-made-paedophile-bishop-peter-ball-impregnable
The disgraced paedophile bishop Peter Ball made himself apparently
rCLimpregnablerCY by cultivating friendships with Prince Charles and
other senior establishment figures who later rushed to support him
when he was accused of sexual abuse, according to a BBC documentary.
Ball, the former bishop of both Lewes and Gloucester who died last
year, boasted of his role as rCLcounsellor to royaltyrCY, Cliff James,
one of his victims, says in the programme. He cultivated friendships
with Margaret Thatcher, peers of the realm, senior judges and
headmasters of leading public schools.
The former bishop was investigated by police in the early 1990s,
which resulted in a police caution. In 2015, he was convicted of
sexual offences against 17 teenagers and young men and jailed for 32
months. He was released in February 2017 after serving half his
sentence.
unquote
Which bit of Catholic - or Christian - theology or teachings forced
him to do any of that?
Please be precise in your answer.
Your question is a foolish one.
Abusers flourish when the entire institution of which they are members,
from the highest level down, are so keen to protect their reputation
that they suppress allegations, find them unproven, claim that accusers
are fantasists.
But you knew that, or you would if you actually read newspaper reports
and watched documentaries.
Which bit of your brain "forces you" to defend sexual predators?
OTOH, which
Then clearly, "everybody" did not know about it.
https://hls.harvard.edu/today/panel-on-spotlight-film-explores-
priest- sex-abuse-scandal-institutional-cover-up-and-advocacy-for-
victims/
The film rCLSpotlightrCY focuses on the dogged pursuit by Boston Globe
reporters to expose the Catholic ChurchrCOs cover-up of the sexual
abuse of children by Boston priests. But there is much more to the
story, as evidenced by a wide-ranging panel discussion of the movie
last week at Harvard Law School that touched on legal issues, secrets
and shame, and even a potential lawsuit against the filmmakers.
rCLIt was the worst-kept secret in Boston that these priests were
molesting children. Everybody seemed to know but no one seemed to do
anything about it.rCY
You cannot seriously say that something was being covered up if
everbody knew about.
The quote was hyperbolic, as I am sure will agree.
I'm sure you can read up on this and understand what the quotations
mean, but I know you have a rather odd aversion to reading any
hyperlinks about anything. So you remain in blissful ignorance.
On 11/12/2025 10:19, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:04:57 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 10/12/2025 18:09, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 16:35:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:28:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 18:35:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:00:47 GMT, "Martin Harran"
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Men and women falling in love with each other is highly
relevant to
the material world but physics does offer much of an
explanation as to
what that love is.
There is your fallacy; not affecting the material world is not >>>>>>>>> the same as
being fully defined by science. Perhaps the greater part of >>>>>>>>> human experience
is most definitely part of the material world despite not being >>>>>>>>> amenable to
scientific study. Not only philosophy but most of psychology, >>>>>>>>> sociology,
politics and economics is not really science but important for >>>>>>>>> all that.
I'm not sure it is you who is getting confused, you ore me, but you >>>>>>>> seem to be supporting my POV rather than Jon's.
Nope. You seem to have failed to understand what I said.
When I was a lecturer and my students failed to grasp a point I was >>>>>> making, I started from the assumption that the shortcoming was in my >>>>>> explanation rather than in their comprehension skills so I would try >>>>>> to present my point in a more understandable way. YMMV
Ok, but I'm not a lecturer and I'm not getting paid to educate you.
Fair enough though I have kept up the same practice in retirement
without payment. I've always had this idea that a point is not worth
making unless people understand it.
When you were a lecturer did you find that your students responded well
to "itch, itch, scratch,scratch" or did they think rather less of you,
and of the other points you were making?
It never came up because unlike you, I didn't bring religion into
subjects where it had no relevance.
Presumably your lecturing skills were self-taught?
As usual, you make wild assumptions based on nothing but your own
bigotry.
And no, I was not self-taught though I guess my Masters degree could
be argued as self-taught as it was a Masters by Research.
So you never obtained any sort of teacher training qualification but
were sufficiently confident of your abilities to place your trust in a
gown and mortar board and an air of omniscience. I know the type.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
The idea that university lecturers should need "teaching qualifications" is a bizarre invention by a gang of insidious parasites, "educationalists", that have wormed their way into, and feed to satiation off, nearly all our institutions. I expect soon we will expect Kings and Prime Ministers to complete a 7 day educational theory course before being allowed to take up their post.And no, I was not self-taught though I guess my Masters degree could
be argued as self-taught as it was a Masters by Research.
So you never obtained any sort of teacher training qualification but
were sufficiently confident of your abilities to place your trust in a
gown and mortar board and an air of omniscience. I know the type.
If university students need to be taught by qualified teachers then they are in the wrong place.
On 11 Dec 2025 at 19:51:55 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 11/12/2025 10:19, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:04:57 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Presumably your lecturing skills were self-taught?
As usual, you make wild assumptions based on nothing but your own
bigotry.
And no, I was not self-taught though I guess my Masters degree could
be argued as self-taught as it was a Masters by Research.
So you never obtained any sort of teacher training qualification but
were sufficiently confident of your abilities to place your trust in a
gown and mortar board and an air of omniscience. I know the type.
The idea that university lecturers should need "teaching qualifications" is a >bizarre invention by a gang of insidious parasites, "educationalists", that >have wormed their way into, and feed to satiation off, nearly all our >institutions. I expect soon we will expect Kings and Prime Ministers to >complete a 7 day educational theory course before being allowed to take up >their post.
If university students need to be taught by qualified teachers then they are >in the wrong place.
On 11 Dec 2025 20:36:18 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Dec 2025 at 19:51:55 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 11/12/2025 10:19, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:04:57 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
Presumably your lecturing skills were self-taught?
As usual, you make wild assumptions based on nothing but your own
bigotry.
And no, I was not self-taught though I guess my Masters degree could
be argued as self-taught as it was a Masters by Research.
So you never obtained any sort of teacher training qualification but
were sufficiently confident of your abilities to place your trust in a
gown and mortar board and an air of omniscience. I know the type.
The idea that university lecturers should need "teaching qualifications" is a
bizarre invention by a gang of insidious parasites, "educationalists", that >> have wormed their way into, and feed to satiation off, nearly all our
institutions. I expect soon we will expect Kings and Prime Ministers to
complete a 7 day educational theory course before being allowed to take up >> their post.
If university students need to be taught by qualified teachers then they are >> in the wrong place.
Todal's knowledge of the 3rd level education system seems on a par
with his knowledge of religion.
On 11 Dec 2025 at 22:52:34 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >wrote:
On 11 Dec 2025 20:36:18 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 Dec 2025 at 19:51:55 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 11/12/2025 10:19, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:04:57 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>> wrote:
[...]
Presumably your lecturing skills were self-taught?
As usual, you make wild assumptions based on nothing but your own
bigotry.
And no, I was not self-taught though I guess my Masters degree could >>>>> be argued as self-taught as it was a Masters by Research.
So you never obtained any sort of teacher training qualification but
were sufficiently confident of your abilities to place your trust in a >>>> gown and mortar board and an air of omniscience. I know the type.
The idea that university lecturers should need "teaching qualifications" is a
bizarre invention by a gang of insidious parasites, "educationalists", that >>> have wormed their way into, and feed to satiation off, nearly all our
institutions. I expect soon we will expect Kings and Prime Ministers to
complete a 7 day educational theory course before being allowed to take up >>> their post.
If university students need to be taught by qualified teachers then they are
in the wrong place.
Todal's knowledge of the 3rd level education system seems on a par
with his knowledge of religion.
Well, no; the situation Todal describes is unfortunately well-ensconced in the >higher levels of academia. I would like to hope that Oxbridge, at least, has >mitigated its evil effects, but I doubt it. You can't even teach junior >doctors at work nowadays without compulsory training in educational theory; >let alone undergraduates.
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
[...]
Unless you continue to defend your religion
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust.
That assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM.
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example.
In just this current thread alone:
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>>>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>>>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>>>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>>>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>>>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>>>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>>>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>>>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so
easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"...
So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual
errors that people make and defending that about which they are making >>>> the factual errors.
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if
you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction
of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and
realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It
was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral
authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating
this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion
at every opportunity.
Not letting up with your constant lying I see. You also said in that post:
"what we must do is face up to those wrongs, learn from them and do
our utmost not to make the same mistakes again. I think the Church
has done well in that regard - it is now, for example, classed as
world best in its child protection measures."
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 11:54:00 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
[...]
Unless you continue to defend your religion
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust.
That assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM.
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example.
In just this current thread alone:
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>>>>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>>>>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>>>>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>>>>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>>>>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>>>>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>>>>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>>>>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so >>>>>>> easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"...
So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual
errors that people make and defending that about which they are making >>>>> the factual errors.
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if
you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction
of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and
realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It
was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral
authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating
this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion
at every opportunity.
Not letting up with your constant lying I see. You also said in that post:
"what we must do is face up to those wrongs, learn from them and do
our utmost not to make the same mistakes again. I think the Church
has done well in that regard - it is now, for example, classed as
world best in its child protection measures."
I posted this article in a previous discussion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
"Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are
now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle
of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to
be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by
the members of almost any other profession"
The author says much the same as what I said; is he, a self-declared
atheist, also defending religion?
On
You seem to be conflating people who are Catholic making achievements,
and the Catholic Church itself making those achievements.
Not at all. Pancho's sarcasm (in the context of things he has said previously) point to him buying into the canard about there being
underlying incompatibility if not outright conflict between science
and the Catholic Church; the examples I gave were simply to counter
that myth.
Given a vast number of Europeans are Catholic it would be surprising
if there weren't a lot of European innovations created by Catholics.
What is less well known is how active the Catholic Church has been
over the last 2000 years in promoting and encouraging science.
I posted this article in a previous discussion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
"Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are
now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle
of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to
be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by
the members of almost any other profession"
The author says much the same as what I said; is he, a self-declared
atheist, also defending religion?
On 2025-12-12, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 11:54:00 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
[...]
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example.Unless you continue to defend your religionThat assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM. >>>>>>>>
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust. >>>>>>>>>
In just this current thread alone:
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>>>>>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>>>>>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>>>>>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>>>>>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>>>>>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>>>>>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>>>>>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>>>>>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so >>>>>>>> easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>>>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"...
So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual >>>>>> errors that people make and defending that about which they are making >>>>>> the factual errors.
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if >>>> you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction
of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and
realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It
was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral
authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating
this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion
at every opportunity.
Not letting up with your constant lying I see. You also said in that post: >>>
"what we must do is face up to those wrongs, learn from them and do
our utmost not to make the same mistakes again. I think the Church
has done well in that regard - it is now, for example, classed as
world best in its child protection measures."
I posted this article in a previous discussion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
"Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are
now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle
of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to
be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by
the members of almost any other profession"
The author says much the same as what I said; is he, a self-declared
atheist, also defending religion?
Firstly, yes of course he very clearly is defending religion,
specifically the Roman Catholic Church. That's not even remotely
debatable, so it's peculiar that you're even asking.
Secondly, are you labouring under some bizarre misapprehension that
the job of atheists is to constantly attack religion?
Thirdly, on a brief perusal, to describe Andrew Brown as an "atheist"--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
appears to be at the very least a misleading over-simplification. He
seems to be an "atheist" in the same way that some Anglican priests
could be described as atheists.
On 09/12/2025 15:28, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?ISTR that it took Whitehead and Russell a few hundred pages to get
there, but yes.
-a-a-a-aThere is a much simpler proof in [combinatorial] game theory, of which the [so-called] surreal number system is [a small but important]
part, of which the usual arithmetic is [a small but important] part.-a The interested reader can refer to the collected works of John Conway, of
"Life" fame;-a it's a bit esoteric for this group.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:vhjnjk1oc16nm6luo4vbl1bam0ov7e651a@4ax.com...
I posted this article in a previous discussion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
"Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are
now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle
of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to
be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by
the members of almost any other profession"
The author says much the same as what I said; is he, a self-declared
atheist, also defending religion?
...
Do you not see the irony in that ? whether intentional or not ?
Tbe very possibility of anyone's child being abused, more especially
in such a context should never arise in the first place. This shouldn't
be the first thing that people have to consider.* Emphasising
that "objectively your child is less likely to be abused by a Catholic
or Anglican priest in the west *today*, than...." simply reminds people
that they were abused in the past
* It's true of course, that it was precisely because in the
past, parents never even considered the possibility that their
children could be being abused, that allowed the situation to
persist. However the point is, that it should never have been
necessary; and shouldn't be necessary now, for parents to
suspect or ever have to worry about the possibility of their
child being abused, in the first place.
I have pointed this out to you in the past but it seems to
little or any effect.
Given events of say the last 40 or so years, in Ireland, the UK
and the USA certainly, the Catholic Church simply has no "good news"
to share with anyone. You personally believe yourself to be
assured of life everlasting in Heaven, providing you keep to
the rules. And good for you; as a lot of people will secretly
envy you the inner contentment that brings.
However your personal salvation does not depend on your ever
mentioning your faith to strangers; at least outside of an
evangelistic context. More especially in the present
climate where you can only ever give succour to the
Church's critics; given the Churches regrettable recent
history.
It really is rather surprising that you cannot see that for
yourself.
bb
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 14:02:44 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:c2iljkp9seu9vo78nrj3fd4v9m67co7vgd@4ax.com...
Invoking Godwin's Law, if someone posted that the Nazis slaughtered 12
million Jews and I pointed out that it was actually 6 million Jews,
Indeed. As any more than 6 million and the Pope would definitely
have noticed !
LOL, as I've just said in another post, you get 10/10 for
perseverence, 0/10 for effectiveness.
On 12/10/25 11:04, Martin Harran wrote:
On
You seem to be conflating people who are Catholic making achievements,
and the Catholic Church itself making those achievements.
Not at all. Pancho's sarcasm (in the context of things he has said
previously) point to him buying into the canard about there being
underlying incompatibility if not outright conflict between science
and the Catholic Church; the examples I gave were simply to counter
that myth.
Given a vast number of Europeans are Catholic it would be surprising
if there weren't a lot of European innovations created by Catholics.
What is less well known is how active the Catholic Church has been
over the last 2000 years in promoting and encouraging science.
You are picking cherries again.
My issue with the Catholics is with--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
respect to their oppression of ideas, oppression of free speech, and
abusive behaviour. A few examples of positive contributions do not >contradict these criticisms.
It is interesting that you bring this up because my criticisms of the >Catholic Church are very similar to my criticisms of the judiciary. I >suspect Todal dislikes my arguments for very similar reasons to you. I >challenge the orthodoxy by which he measures his own self-worth.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 11:54:00 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
Unless you continue to defend your religion
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust.
That assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>>> where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM.
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example.
In just this current thread alone:
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com>
<sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com>
<5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com>
<ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com>
<30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com>
<mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com>
<438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com>
<id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com>
<499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so >>>>>>> easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>>> there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"...
So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual
errors that people make and defending that about which they are making >>>>> the factual errors.
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if
you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction
of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and
realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It
was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral
authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating
this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion
at every opportunity.
Not letting up with your constant lying I see. You also said in that post: >>
"what we must do is face up to those wrongs, learn from them and do
our utmost not to make the same mistakes again. I think the Church
has done well in that regard - it is now, for example, classed as
world best in its child protection measures."
I posted this article in a previous discussion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
"Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are
now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle
of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to
be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by
the members of almost any other profession"
The author says much the same as what I said; is he, a self-declared
atheist, also defending religion?
And when everybody is claimed to know about a particular thing, a claim
that it was covered up is... interesting.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 10:50:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:vhjnjk1oc16nm6luo4vbl1bam0ov7e651a@4ax.com...
I posted this article in a previous discussion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
"Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are
now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle
of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to
be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by
the members of almost any other profession"
The author says much the same as what I said; is he, a self-declared
atheist, also defending religion?
...
Do you not see the irony in that ? whether intentional or not ?
Tbe very possibility of anyone's child being abused, more especially
in such a context should never arise in the first place. This shouldn't
be the first thing that people have to consider.* Emphasising
that "objectively your child is less likely to be abused by a Catholic
or Anglican priest in the west *today*, than...." simply reminds people >>that they were abused in the past
* It's true of course, that it was precisely because in the
past, parents never even considered the possibility that their
children could be being abused, that allowed the situation to
persist. However the point is, that it should never have been
necessary; and shouldn't be necessary now, for parents to
suspect or ever have to worry about the possibility of their
child being abused, in the first place.
I have pointed this out to you in the past but it seems to
little or any effect.
That might just be something to with the fact that you post so much
rubbish about subjects where you clearly haven't a clue what you are
talking about.
Given events of say the last 40 or so years, in Ireland, the UK
and the USA certainly, the Catholic Church simply has no "good news"
to share with anyone. You personally believe yourself to be
assured of life everlasting in Heaven, providing you keep to
the rules. And good for you; as a lot of people will secretly
envy you the inner contentment that brings.
However your personal salvation does not depend on your ever
mentioning your faith to strangers; at least outside of an
evangelistic context. More especially in the present
climate where you can only ever give succour to the
Church's critics; given the Churches regrettable recent
history.
It really is rather surprising that you cannot see that for
yourself.
On 12/10/25 11:04, Martin Harran wrote:
On
You seem to be conflating people who are Catholic making achievements,
and the Catholic Church itself making those achievements.
Not at all. Pancho's sarcasm (in the context of things he has said
previously) point to him buying into the canard about there being
underlying incompatibility if not outright conflict between science
and the Catholic Church; the examples I gave were simply to counter
that myth.
Given a vast number of Europeans are Catholic it would be surprising
if there weren't a lot of European innovations created by Catholics.
What is less well known is how active the Catholic Church has been
over the last 2000 years in promoting and encouraging science.
You are picking cherries again. My issue with the Catholics is with
respect to their oppression of ideas, oppression of free speech, and
abusive behaviour. A few examples of positive contributions do not contradict these criticisms.
It is interesting that you bring this up because my criticisms of the Catholic Church are very similar to my criticisms of the judiciary. I suspect Todal dislikes my arguments for very similar reasons to you. I challenge the orthodoxy by which he measures his own self-worth.
On 11/12/2025 07:51 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 11/12/2025 10:19, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:04:57 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 10/12/2025 18:09, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 16:35:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:Fair enough though I have kept up the same practice in retirement
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:28:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 18:35:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:00:47 GMT, "Martin Harran"
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Men and women falling in love with each other is highly >>>>>>>>>>> relevant to
the material world but physics does offer much of an
explanation as to
what that love is.
There is your fallacy; not affecting the material world is not >>>>>>>>>> the same as
being fully defined by science. Perhaps the greater part of >>>>>>>>>> human experience
is most definitely part of the material world despite not >>>>>>>>>> being amenable to
scientific study. Not only philosophy but most of psychology, >>>>>>>>>> sociology,
politics and economics is not really science but important for >>>>>>>>>> all that.
I'm not sure it is you who is getting confused, you ore me, but >>>>>>>>> you
seem to be supporting my POV rather than Jon's.
Nope. You seem to have failed to understand what I said.
When I was a lecturer and my students failed to grasp a point I was >>>>>>> making, I started from the assumption that the shortcoming was in my >>>>>>> explanation rather than in their comprehension skills so I would try >>>>>>> to present my point in a more understandable way. YMMV
Ok, but I'm not a lecturer and I'm not getting paid to educate you. >>>>>
without payment. I've always had this idea that a point is not worth >>>>> making unless people understand it.
When you were a lecturer did you find that your students responded well >>>> to "itch, itch, scratch,scratch" or did they think rather less of you, >>>> and of the other points you were making?
It never came up because unlike you, I didn't bring religion into
subjects where it had no relevance.
Presumably your lecturing skills were self-taught?
As usual, you make wild assumptions based on nothing but your own
bigotry.
And no, I was not self-taught though I guess my Masters degree could
be argued as self-taught as it was a Masters by Research.
So you never obtained any sort of teacher training qualification but
were sufficiently confident of your abilities to place your trust in a
gown and mortar board and an air of omniscience. I know the type.
I was taught English, French, Latin, Ancient Greek, General Science, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, History, Geography and even Music at grammar school by a staff who each fitted that description.
What was wrong with it?
On 11/12/2025 21:58, JNugent wrote:
And when everybody is claimed to know about a particular thing, a
claim that it was covered up is... interesting.
Yes, it is interesting. But I don't think you fully understand it.
By way of an analogy, in a school it may be that many of the pupils were aware that a particular master was a predatory paedophile, fondling the pupils and making them feel uncomfortable. But the pupils will probably
not have wanted to rock the boat, to complain to parents or to the head teacher. So that's the cover-up. Put up with it because eventually you
move on and derive some benefit from your expensive education.
For further elucidation, try reading Charles Spencer's book, "A Very
Private School", only 4.99 on Kindle.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 10:00:50 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-12, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 11:54:00 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
[...]
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example.Unless you continue to defend your religionThat assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM. >>>>>>>>>
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust. >>>>>>>>>>
In just this current thread alone:
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so >>>>>>>>> easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>>>>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"...
So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual >>>>>>> errors that people make and defending that about which they are making >>>>>>> the factual errors.
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if >>>>> you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction >>>>> of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and
realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It >>>>> was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral >>>>> authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating >>>>> this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion >>>>> at every opportunity.
Not letting up with your constant lying I see. You also said in that post: >>>>
"what we must do is face up to those wrongs, learn from them and do >>>> our utmost not to make the same mistakes again. I think the Church
has done well in that regard - it is now, for example, classed as
world best in its child protection measures."
I posted this article in a previous discussion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
"Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are
now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle
of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to
be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by
the members of almost any other profession"
The author says much the same as what I said; is he, a self-declared
atheist, also defending religion?
Firstly, yes of course he very clearly is defending religion,
specifically the Roman Catholic Church. That's not even remotely
debatable, so it's peculiar that you're even asking.
You have a peculiar idea of what defending means.
I also note that you still haven't answered my question about me
correcting a false claim about the number of Jews slaughtered as
amounting to defending the Nazis.
Secondly, are you labouring under some bizarre misapprehension that
the job of atheists is to constantly attack religion?
Not at all. It's just that when I previously posted an article about
levels of child abuse, you claimed the author had "skin in the game"
because despite his extensive academic qualifications, he is a
Catholic; I thought that an article by a non-Catholic who regards the intellectual authority of the Catholic Church as "emotionally
repugnant" might be more acceptable to you but apparently not because
you don't consider him a 'real' atheist.
On 11/12/2025 22:01, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2025 07:51 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 11/12/2025 10:19, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:04:57 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 10/12/2025 18:09, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 16:35:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:Fair enough though I have kept up the same practice in retirement
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:28:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2025 18:35:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:00:47 GMT, "Martin Harran"
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Men and women falling in love with each other is highly >>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to
the material world but physics does offer much of an
explanation as to
what that love is.
There is your fallacy; not affecting the material world is >>>>>>>>>>> not the same as
being fully defined by science. Perhaps the greater part of >>>>>>>>>>> human experience
is most definitely part of the material world despite not >>>>>>>>>>> being amenable to
scientific study. Not only philosophy but most of psychology, >>>>>>>>>>> sociology,
politics and economics is not really science but important >>>>>>>>>>> for all that.
I'm not sure it is you who is getting confused, you ore me, >>>>>>>>>> but you
seem to be supporting my POV rather than Jon's.
Nope. You seem to have failed to understand what I said.
When I was a lecturer and my students failed to grasp a point I was >>>>>>>> making, I started from the assumption that the shortcoming was >>>>>>>> in my
explanation rather than in their comprehension skills so I would >>>>>>>> try
to present my point in a more understandable way. YMMV
Ok, but I'm not a lecturer and I'm not getting paid to educate you. >>>>>>
without payment. I've always had this idea that a point is not worth >>>>>> making unless people understand it.
When you were a lecturer did you find that your students responded
well
to "itch, itch, scratch,scratch" or did they think rather less of you, >>>>> and of the other points you were making?
It never came up because unlike you, I didn't bring religion into
subjects where it had no relevance.
Presumably your lecturing skills were self-taught?
As usual, you make wild assumptions based on nothing but your own
bigotry.
And no, I was not self-taught though I guess my Masters degree could
be argued as self-taught as it was a Masters by Research.
So you never obtained any sort of teacher training qualification but
were sufficiently confident of your abilities to place your trust in
a gown and mortar board and an air of omniscience. I know the type.
I was taught English, French, Latin, Ancient Greek, General Science,
Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, History, Geography and even Music at
grammar school by a staff who each fitted that description.
What was wrong with it?
My experience was exactly the same as yours, and it was reputedly one of
the very best grammar schools in the entire nation.
The quality of teaching varied enormously. It was obvious that some of
the teachers in their gowns and mortar boards felt that they would
rather be teaching undergraduates or having learned arguments with their peers. They really weren't any good (some but not all) at encouraging
pupils to form their own opinions and to actually enjoy the subject
rather than focus on passing exams.
On 12/12/2025 11:19 am, The Todal wrote:
On 11/12/2025 21:58, JNugent wrote:
And when everybody is claimed to know about a particular thing, a claim >>>that it was covered up is... interesting.
Yes, it is interesting. But I don't think you fully understand it.
Yes, the idea of everybody knowing something because it was common
knowledge but no-one knowing the same thing because it has been covered up >is a little illogical, I agree.
Schrodinger's common knowledge?
By way of an analogy, in a school it may be that many of the pupils were >>aware that a particular master was a predatory paedophile, fondling the >>pupils and making them feel uncomfortable. But the pupils will probably >>not have wanted to rock the boat, to complain to parents or to the head >>teacher. So that's the cover-up. Put up with it because eventually you >>move on and derive some benefit from your expensive education.
Free of charge (to us)! This was in the days when good schools were still >valued and provided as part of the settlement brought in by the 1944 >Education Act. You've probably heard of it.
For further elucidation, try reading Charles Spencer's book, "A Very >>Private School", only 4.99 on Kindle.
I find the idea that you think my family to have been able to afford
private education somewhat amusing!
And I never witnessed any abuse of pupils at any of the schools I attended.
On 12/12/2025 in message <mq2e57Fl2fuU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2025 11:19 am, The Todal wrote:
On 11/12/2025 21:58, JNugent wrote:
And when everybody is claimed to know about a particular thing, a
claim that it was covered up is... interesting.
Yes, it is interesting. But I don't think you fully understand it.
Yes, the idea of everybody knowing something because it was common
knowledge but no-one knowing the same thing because it has been
covered up is a little illogical, I agree.
Schrodinger's common knowledge?
By way of an analogy, in a school it may be that many of the pupils
were aware that a particular master was a predatory paedophile,
fondling the pupils and making them feel uncomfortable. But the
pupils will probably not have wanted to rock the boat, to complain to
parents or to the head teacher. So that's the cover-up. Put up with
it because eventually you move on and derive some benefit from your
expensive education.
Free of charge (to us)! This was in the days when good schools were
still valued and provided as part of the settlement brought in by the
1944 Education Act.-a You've probably heard of it.
For further elucidation, try reading Charles Spencer's book, "A Very
Private School", only 4.99 on Kindle.
I find the idea that you think my family to have been able to afford
private education somewhat amusing!
And I never witnessed any abuse of pupils at any of the schools I
attended.
Not having the board rubber thrown at you, being slippered with a size
11 Plimsoll, having the desk lid slammed on your head, having your head rubbed along a radiator, being knocked sideways by a "face warmer",
being caned so hard the cane broke?
You haven't lived.
On 12/12/2025 11:27 am, The Todal wrote:
On 11/12/2025 22:01, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2025 07:51 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 11/12/2025 10:19, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:04:57 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 10/12/2025 18:09, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 16:35:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:Fair enough though I have kept up the same practice in retirement >>>>>>> without payment. I've always had this idea that a point is not worth >>>>>>> making unless people understand it.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:28:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2025 18:35:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:00:47 GMT, "Martin Harran"
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Men and women falling in love with each other is highly >>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant to
the material world but physics does offer much of an >>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation as to
what that love is.
There is your fallacy; not affecting the material world is >>>>>>>>>>>> not the same as
being fully defined by science. Perhaps the greater part of >>>>>>>>>>>> human experience
is most definitely part of the material world despite not >>>>>>>>>>>> being amenable to
scientific study. Not only philosophy but most of
psychology, sociology,
politics and economics is not really science but important >>>>>>>>>>>> for all that.
I'm not sure it is you who is getting confused, you ore me, >>>>>>>>>>> but you
seem to be supporting my POV rather than Jon's.
Nope. You seem to have failed to understand what I said.
When I was a lecturer and my students failed to grasp a point I >>>>>>>>> was
making, I started from the assumption that the shortcoming was >>>>>>>>> in my
explanation rather than in their comprehension skills so I
would try
to present my point in a more understandable way. YMMV
Ok, but I'm not a lecturer and I'm not getting paid to educate you. >>>>>>>
When you were a lecturer did you find that your students responded >>>>>> well
to "itch, itch, scratch,scratch" or did they think rather less of >>>>>> you,
and of the other points you were making?
It never came up because unlike you, I didn't bring religion into
subjects where it had no relevance.
Presumably your lecturing skills were self-taught?
As usual, you make wild assumptions based on nothing but your own
bigotry.
And no, I was not self-taught though I guess my Masters degree could >>>>> be argued as self-taught as it was a Masters by Research.
So you never obtained any sort of teacher training qualification but
were sufficiently confident of your abilities to place your trust in
a gown and mortar board and an air of omniscience. I know the type.
I was taught English, French, Latin, Ancient Greek, General Science,
Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, History, Geography and even Music at
grammar school by a staff who each fitted that description.
What was wrong with it?
My experience was exactly the same as yours, and it was reputedly one
of the very best grammar schools in the entire nation.
The quality of teaching varied enormously. It was obvious that some of
the teachers in their gowns and mortar boards felt that they would
rather be teaching undergraduates or having learned arguments with
their peers. They really weren't any good (some but not all) at
encouraging pupils to form their own opinions and to actually enjoy
the subject rather than focus on passing exams.
That was how things were then. For instance, I was (I thought)
terminally put off Shakespeare at grammar school. I was 25 before I saw
any of the Bard's plays live - and I was an instant convert.
But would you rather send your own children to such a school or to the Blair-branded bog-standard down the road where all the teaching staff
have the great advantage of PGCE?
I know my own answer to that. And I do not take up postures on such
things (I think you know that).
As an aside, did you see Channel 5's "Play For Today" last night
(Thursday)?
On 12/12/2025 in message <mq2e57Fl2fuU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2025 11:19 am, The Todal wrote:
On 11/12/2025 21:58, JNugent wrote:
And when everybody is claimed to know about a particular thing, a
claim that it was covered up is... interesting.
Yes, it is interesting. But I don't think you fully understand it.
Yes, the idea of everybody knowing something because it was common
knowledge but no-one knowing the same thing because it has been
covered up is a little illogical, I agree.
Schrodinger's common knowledge?
By way of an analogy, in a school it may be that many of the pupils
were aware that a particular master was a predatory paedophile,
fondling the pupils and making them feel uncomfortable. But the
pupils will probably not have wanted to rock the boat, to complain to
parents or to the head teacher. So that's the cover-up. Put up with
it because eventually you move on and derive some benefit from your
expensive education.
Free of charge (to us)! This was in the days when good schools were
still valued and provided as part of the settlement brought in by the
1944 Education Act.-a You've probably heard of it.
For further elucidation, try reading Charles Spencer's book, "A Very
Private School", only 4.99 on Kindle.
I find the idea that you think my family to have been able to afford
private education somewhat amusing!
And I never witnessed any abuse of pupils at any of the schools I
attended.
Not having the board rubber thrown at you, being slippered with a size
11 Plimsoll, having the desk lid slammed on your head, having your head rubbed along a radiator, being knocked sideways by a "face warmer",
being caned so hard the cane broke?
You haven't lived.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:f6tnjkhfv8t98s7r9brfcna6l1o0its67c@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 10:50:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:vhjnjk1oc16nm6luo4vbl1bam0ov7e651a@4ax.com...
I posted this article in a previous discussion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
"Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are
now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle
of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to >>>> be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by
the members of almost any other profession"
The author says much the same as what I said; is he, a self-declared
atheist, also defending religion?
...
Do you not see the irony in that ? whether intentional or not ?
Tbe very possibility of anyone's child being abused, more especially
in such a context should never arise in the first place. This shouldn't >>>be the first thing that people have to consider.* Emphasising
that "objectively your child is less likely to be abused by a Catholic
or Anglican priest in the west *today*, than...." simply reminds people >>>that they were abused in the past
* It's true of course, that it was precisely because in the
past, parents never even considered the possibility that their
children could be being abused, that allowed the situation to
persist. However the point is, that it should never have been
necessary; and shouldn't be necessary now, for parents to
suspect or ever have to worry about the possibility of their
child being abused, in the first place.
I have pointed this out to you in the past but it seems to
little or any effect.
That might just be something to with the fact that you post so much
rubbish about subjects where you clearly haven't a clue what you are
talking about.
Simply because you personally are seemingly incapable of understanding >something, does not thereby make it rubbish.
Although apparently as you're better qualified, perhaps you'd like to
help out your perplexed co-religionist Nugent there, by explaining
precisely what is meant by the exhortation
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
bb
Given events of say the last 40 or so years, in Ireland, the UK
and the USA certainly, the Catholic Church simply has no "good news"
to share with anyone. You personally believe yourself to be
assured of life everlasting in Heaven, providing you keep to
the rules. And good for you; as a lot of people will secretly
envy you the inner contentment that brings.
However your personal salvation does not depend on your ever
mentioning your faith to strangers; at least outside of an
evangelistic context. More especially in the present
climate where you can only ever give succour to the
Church's critics; given the Churches regrettable recent
history.
It really is rather surprising that you cannot see that for
yourself.
You posted the comforting conclusion but omitted these words:
So why the concentration on Catholic priests and brothers? Perhaps I am >unduly cynical, but I believe that all institutions attempt to cover up >institutional wrongdoing although the Roman Catholic church has had a
higher opinion of itself than most, and thus a greater tendency to lie
about these things. Because it is an extremely authoritarian institution
at least within the hierarchy, it is also one where there were few
checks and balances on the misbehaviour of the powerful. The scandal has >been loudest and most damaging in Ireland, because it came along just at
the moment when the church was losing its power over society at large,
and where it was no longer able to cover up what had happened, but still >willing to try. Much the same is true in the diocese of Boston which was >bankrupted by the scandal.
unquote
I don't think that author is competent to say whether the safeguards
against paedophilia are among the tightest or most effective in the
world -
it requires Inquiries and evidence-taking to reach any reliable
conclusion.
But paedophilia in a school involves victims who can eventually escape
and try to move on with their lives. In religion, the victims are part
of a cult, a community that makes its members feel beholden to their
leaders for their entire lives or risk being cast into the (illusory)
outer darkness.
Religions do not encourage whistle-blowing or complaints or exposing >wrongdoing especially on the part of religious leaders. Complacency is >certainly encouraged.
On 2025-12-12, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 10:00:50 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-12, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 11:54:00 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual >>>>>>>> errors that people make and defending that about which they are making >>>>>>>> the factual errors.
In just this current thread alone:On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
[...]
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example. >>>>>>>>>Unless you continue to defend your religionThat assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>>>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM. >>>>>>>>>>
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust. >>>>>>>>>>>
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so >>>>>>>>>> easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>>>>>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"... >>>>>>>>
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if >>>>>> you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction >>>>>> of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and
realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It >>>>>> was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral >>>>>> authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating >>>>>> this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion >>>>>> at every opportunity.
Not letting up with your constant lying I see. You also said in that post: >>>>>
"what we must do is face up to those wrongs, learn from them and do >>>>> our utmost not to make the same mistakes again. I think the Church >>>>> has done well in that regard - it is now, for example, classed as >>>>> world best in its child protection measures."
I posted this article in a previous discussion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
"Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are
now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle
of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to >>>> be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by
the members of almost any other profession"
The author says much the same as what I said; is he, a self-declared
atheist, also defending religion?
Firstly, yes of course he very clearly is defending religion, >>>specifically the Roman Catholic Church. That's not even remotely >>>debatable, so it's peculiar that you're even asking.
You have a peculiar idea of what defending means.
Not for the first time, I'm going to mention that many UK libraries
provide free access to the full Oxford English Dictionary via the
oed.com website (you don't need to go to the library, just login using
your library card number):
defend, verb: transitive. To speak or write in defence or support
of (a person or thing); to support against criticism, disagreement,
or attack; to justify, to vindicate. Also intransitive.
That is literally what he is doing in that article. He would certainly
say that he was if you asked him. Are you seriously claiming otherwise?
I also note that you still haven't answered my question about me
correcting a false claim about the number of Jews slaughtered as
amounting to defending the Nazis.
That's twice you've noted that. Do I win a prize if it gets noted
three times?
Secondly, are you labouring under some bizarre misapprehension that
the job of atheists is to constantly attack religion?
Not at all. It's just that when I previously posted an article about
levels of child abuse, you claimed the author had "skin in the game"
because despite his extensive academic qualifications, he is a
Catholic; I thought that an article by a non-Catholic who regards the
intellectual authority of the Catholic Church as "emotionally
repugnant" might be more acceptable to you but apparently not because
you don't consider him a 'real' atheist.
I didn't say that. I said it was a misleading over-simplification
to just describe him as an atheist and nothing more. Just as your
description of our previous interaction is also a misleading
omission.
And what does whether Andrew Brown has a disinterested viewpoint
or not have to do with anything?
Have you already forgotten that
the point is your false claim to have not defended Catholicism,
not whether the defences that you did post were justified or not?
Do you somehow not realise that by trying to support your defences,--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
you are admitting that they exist?
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 11:19:58 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:f6tnjkhfv8t98s7r9brfcna6l1o0its67c@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 10:50:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:vhjnjk1oc16nm6luo4vbl1bam0ov7e651a@4ax.com...
I posted this article in a previous discussion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
"Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are
now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle >>>>> of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to >>>>> be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by >>>>> the members of almost any other profession"
The author says much the same as what I said; is he, a self-declared >>>>> atheist, also defending religion?
...
Do you not see the irony in that ? whether intentional or not ?
Tbe very possibility of anyone's child being abused, more especially
in such a context should never arise in the first place. This shouldn't >>>>be the first thing that people have to consider.* Emphasising
that "objectively your child is less likely to be abused by a Catholic >>>>or Anglican priest in the west *today*, than...." simply reminds people >>>>that they were abused in the past
* It's true of course, that it was precisely because in the
past, parents never even considered the possibility that their
children could be being abused, that allowed the situation to
persist. However the point is, that it should never have been >>>>necessary; and shouldn't be necessary now, for parents to
suspect or ever have to worry about the possibility of their
child being abused, in the first place.
I have pointed this out to you in the past but it seems to
little or any effect.
That might just be something to with the fact that you post so much
rubbish about subjects where you clearly haven't a clue what you are
talking about.
Simply because you personally are seemingly incapable of understanding >>something, does not thereby make it rubbish.
Although apparently as you're better qualified, perhaps you'd like to
help out your perplexed co-religionist Nugent there, by explaining >>precisely what is meant by the exhortation
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
bb
Given events of say the last 40 or so years, in Ireland, the UK
and the USA certainly, the Catholic Church simply has no "good news"
to share with anyone. You personally believe yourself to be
assured of life everlasting in Heaven, providing you keep to
the rules. And good for you; as a lot of people will secretly
envy you the inner contentment that brings.
However your personal salvation does not depend on your ever
mentioning your faith to strangers; at least outside of an
evangelistic context. More especially in the present
climate where you can only ever give succour to the
Church's critics; given the Churches regrettable recent
history.
It really is rather surprising that you cannot see that for
yourself.
OK, against my better judgement, I'll make one last effort to explain
some of this stuff to you in very simple terms.
Mainstream Christian denominations (Protestant and Catholic)
distinguish between the *act* of sin and the *person* committing that
act; what is sometimes expressed as "hate the sin, love the sinner".
In regards to the act of sin, that is always wrong; sexually abusing
children is wrong and sinful, no ifs or buts, no excuses. Similarly,
covering up the abuse of children is wrong and sinful, no ifs or buts,
no excuses.
In regards to the person carrying out the act, when they are doing so
they are committing sin and deserving condemnation. If they continue
to carry out the act, they continue to commit sin and deserve
condemnation. If however, they face up to the sinfulness that they
have been guilty of; if they are genuinely remorseful for it and they
resolve to stop committing that act, then they can receive
forgiveness.
We must never forget or minimise the awfulness of the abuse that
children suffered from priests and the dreadful way in which the
hierarchy tried to cover it up. That should not prevent us from giving
full support and encouragement to those who recognise the wrong they
did and genuinely desire to prevent such things from happening again.
Hopefully, that will make things a little bit clearer for you, but I
won't hold my breath.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:dciojkl0d1j6jia58ab4p4e1cebnmq68bu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 11:19:58 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:f6tnjkhfv8t98s7r9brfcna6l1o0its67c@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 10:50:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:vhjnjk1oc16nm6luo4vbl1bam0ov7e651a@4ax.com...
I posted this article in a previous discussion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
"Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are >>>>>> now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle >>>>>> of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to >>>>>> be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by >>>>>> the members of almost any other profession"
The author says much the same as what I said; is he, a self-declared >>>>>> atheist, also defending religion?
...
Do you not see the irony in that ? whether intentional or not ?
Tbe very possibility of anyone's child being abused, more especially >>>>>in such a context should never arise in the first place. This shouldn't >>>>>be the first thing that people have to consider.* Emphasising
that "objectively your child is less likely to be abused by a Catholic >>>>>or Anglican priest in the west *today*, than...." simply reminds people >>>>>that they were abused in the past
* It's true of course, that it was precisely because in the
past, parents never even considered the possibility that their >>>>>children could be being abused, that allowed the situation to >>>>>persist. However the point is, that it should never have been >>>>>necessary; and shouldn't be necessary now, for parents to
suspect or ever have to worry about the possibility of their
child being abused, in the first place.
I have pointed this out to you in the past but it seems to
little or any effect.
That might just be something to with the fact that you post so much
rubbish about subjects where you clearly haven't a clue what you are
talking about.
Simply because you personally are seemingly incapable of understanding >>>something, does not thereby make it rubbish.
Although apparently as you're better qualified, perhaps you'd like to >>>help out your perplexed co-religionist Nugent there, by explaining >>>precisely what is meant by the exhortation
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
bb
Given events of say the last 40 or so years, in Ireland, the UK
and the USA certainly, the Catholic Church simply has no "good news" >>>>>to share with anyone. You personally believe yourself to be
assured of life everlasting in Heaven, providing you keep to
the rules. And good for you; as a lot of people will secretly
envy you the inner contentment that brings.
However your personal salvation does not depend on your ever >>>>>mentioning your faith to strangers; at least outside of an >>>>>evangelistic context. More especially in the present
climate where you can only ever give succour to the
Church's critics; given the Churches regrettable recent
history.
It really is rather surprising that you cannot see that for
yourself.
OK, against my better judgement, I'll make one last effort to explain
some of this stuff to you in very simple terms.
Mainstream Christian denominations (Protestant and Catholic)
distinguish between the *act* of sin and the *person* committing that
act; what is sometimes expressed as "hate the sin, love the sinner".
In regards to the act of sin, that is always wrong; sexually abusing
children is wrong and sinful, no ifs or buts, no excuses. Similarly,
covering up the abuse of children is wrong and sinful, no ifs or buts,
no excuses.
In regards to the person carrying out the act, when they are doing so
they are committing sin and deserving condemnation. If they continue
to carry out the act, they continue to commit sin and deserve
condemnation. If however, they face up to the sinfulness that they
have been guilty of; if they are genuinely remorseful for it and they
resolve to stop committing that act, then they can receive
forgiveness.
We must never forget or minimise the awfulness of the abuse that
children suffered from priests and the dreadful way in which the
hierarchy tried to cover it up. That should not prevent us from giving
full support and encouragement to those who recognise the wrong they
did and genuinely desire to prevent such things from happening again.
Hopefully, that will make things a little bit clearer for you, but I
won't hold my breath.
Are you sure you're not confusing me with somebody else, the Todal
perhaps ?
As he's the one who seems much more upset about all this.
I'm just suggesting that you're not doing yourself any favours, by
going on about it so much, all the time.
Also when you say
" If however, they face up to the sinfulness that they have been guilty
of; if they are genuinely remorseful for it and they
resolve to stop committing that act, then they can receive
forgiveness.
Perhaps you should have a word with Mr Nugent about this. As he regards >forgiveness strictly as being God's prerogative; and so is much more in >favour of simply executing murderers instead.
There is definitely no "love the sinner" with him.
On 12/12/2025 12:33 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 12/12/2025 in message <mq2e57Fl2fuU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2025 11:19 am, The Todal wrote:
On 11/12/2025 21:58, JNugent wrote:
And when everybody is claimed to know about a particular thing, a claim >>>>>that it was covered up is... interesting.
Yes, it is interesting. But I don't think you fully understand it.
Yes, the idea of everybody knowing something because it was common >>>knowledge but no-one knowing the same thing because it has been covered >>>up is a little illogical, I agree.
Schrodinger's common knowledge?
By way of an analogy, in a school it may be that many of the pupils were >>>>aware that a particular master was a predatory paedophile, fondling the >>>>pupils and making them feel uncomfortable. But the pupils will probably >>>>not have wanted to rock the boat, to complain to parents or to the head >>>>teacher. So that's the cover-up. Put up with it because eventually you >>>>move on and derive some benefit from your expensive education.
Free of charge (to us)! This was in the days when good schools were still >>>valued and provided as part of the settlement brought in by the 1944 >>>Education Act.-a You've probably heard of it.
For further elucidation, try reading Charles Spencer's book, "A Very >>>>Private School", only 4.99 on Kindle.
I find the idea that you think my family to have been able to afford >>>private education somewhat amusing!
And I never witnessed any abuse of pupils at any of the schools I >>>attended.
Not having the board rubber thrown at you, being slippered with a size 11 >>Plimsoll, having the desk lid slammed on your head, having your head >>rubbed along a radiator, being knocked sideways by a "face warmer", being >>caned so hard the cane broke?
You haven't lived.
You lived in a tough area, didn't you?
Inner-city Liverpool was a lot less rough than that.
On 12/12/2025 in message <mq2posFmu42U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2025 12:33 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 12/12/2025 in message <mq2e57Fl2fuU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 12/12/2025 11:19 am, The Todal wrote:
On 11/12/2025 21:58, JNugent wrote:
And when everybody is claimed to know about a particular thing,
a-a-a claim that it was covered up is... interesting.
Yes, it is interesting. But I don't think you fully understand it.
Yes, the idea of everybody knowing something because it was common
knowledge but no-one knowing the same thing because it has been
covered up is a little illogical, I agree.
Schrodinger's common knowledge?
By way of an analogy, in a school it may be that many of the
pupils-a were aware that a particular master was a predatory
paedophile,-a fondling the pupils and making them feel
uncomfortable. But the-a pupils will probably not have wanted to
rock the boat, to complain to-a parents or to the head teacher. So
that's the cover-up. Put up with-a it because eventually you move on >>>>> and derive some benefit from your-a expensive education.
Free of charge (to us)! This was in the days when good schools were
still valued and provided as part of the settlement brought in by
the-a 1944 Education Act.-a You've probably heard of it.
For further elucidation, try reading Charles Spencer's book, "A
Very Private School", only 4.99 on Kindle.
I find the idea that you think my family to have been able to afford
private education somewhat amusing!
And I never witnessed any abuse of pupils at any of the schools I
attended.
Not having the board rubber thrown at you, being slippered with a
size-a 11 Plimsoll, having the desk lid slammed on your head, having
your head rubbed along a radiator, being knocked sideways by a "face
warmer",-a being caned so hard the cane broke?
You haven't lived.
You lived in a tough area, didn't you?
Inner-city Liverpool was a lot less rough than that.
The school was in Lewisham in prefabs as it was bombed out during the
war. It was horrendously snobby, it was grant aided and is now a public school.
Eric Ambler and James Cleverly are old boys.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 11:59:59 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-12, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 10:00:50 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-12, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 11:54:00 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual >>>>>>>>> errors that people make and defending that about which they are making
In just this current thread alone:On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
[...]
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example. >>>>>>>>>>Unless you continue to defend your religionThat assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>>>>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM. >>>>>>>>>>>
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust. >>>>>>>>>>>>
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so >>>>>>>>>>> easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>>>>>>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"... >>>>>>>>>
the factual errors.
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if >>>>>>> you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction >>>>>>> of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and >>>>>>> realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It >>>>>>> was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral >>>>>>> authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating >>>>>>> this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion >>>>>>> at every opportunity.
Not letting up with your constant lying I see. You also said in that post:
"what we must do is face up to those wrongs, learn from them and do >>>>>> our utmost not to make the same mistakes again. I think the Church >>>>>> has done well in that regard - it is now, for example, classed as >>>>>> world best in its child protection measures."
I posted this article in a previous discussion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
"Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are
now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle >>>>> of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to >>>>> be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by >>>>> the members of almost any other profession"
The author says much the same as what I said; is he, a self-declared >>>>> atheist, also defending religion?
Firstly, yes of course he very clearly is defending religion, >>>>specifically the Roman Catholic Church. That's not even remotely >>>>debatable, so it's peculiar that you're even asking.
You have a peculiar idea of what defending means.
Not for the first time, I'm going to mention that many UK libraries
provide free access to the full Oxford English Dictionary via the
oed.com website (you don't need to go to the library, just login using
your library card number):
defend, verb: transitive. To speak or write in defence or support
of (a person or thing); to support against criticism, disagreement,
or attack; to justify, to vindicate. Also intransitive.
Maybe I need you new glasses or something; can you show me where the
said anything about correcting errors or misconceptions equates to
defence?
You also might point out where I have ever justified or vindicated the
child abuse carried out by priests or the cover-up by the hierarchy.
That is literally what he is doing in that article. He would certainly
say that he was if you asked him. Are you seriously claiming otherwise?
Yes, I do not consider somebody setting the record straight about an organisation as any kind of support for or defence of that
organisation as in my example about the Nazis that you studiously
avoid.
I also note that you still haven't answered my question about me
correcting a false claim about the number of Jews slaughtered as
amounting to defending the Nazis.
That's twice you've noted that. Do I win a prize if it gets noted
three times?
No, you just highlight that you don't want answered because you have
to either a) accuse me of defending Naziism or b) accept that the
arguments you have made about be defending my religion are simply
badly formed. I'm fairly sure it is b) but you haven't the strength of character to admit when you got something wrong.
Secondly, are you labouring under some bizarre misapprehension that
the job of atheists is to constantly attack religion?
Not at all. It's just that when I previously posted an article about
levels of child abuse, you claimed the author had "skin in the game"
because despite his extensive academic qualifications, he is a
Catholic; I thought that an article by a non-Catholic who regards the
intellectual authority of the Catholic Church as "emotionally
repugnant" might be more acceptable to you but apparently not because
you don't consider him a 'real' atheist.
I didn't say that. I said it was a misleading over-simplification
to just describe him as an atheist and nothing more. Just as your >>description of our previous interaction is also a misleading
omission.
And what does whether Andrew Brown has a disinterested viewpoint
or not have to do with anything?
It stops you from handwaving the article away on the basis that the
author is a Catholic with "skin in the game".
Have you already forgotten that the point is your false claim to have
not defended Catholicism, not whether the defences that you did post
were justified or not?
Nice try but I did not post any *defences*.
Do you somehow not realise that by trying to support your defences,
you are admitting that they exist?
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 11:19:58 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6tnjkhfv8t98s7r9brfcna6l1o0its67c@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 10:50:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vhjnjk1oc16nm6luo4vbl1bam0ov7e651a@4ax.com...
I posted this article in a previous discussion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
"Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are
now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle >>>>> of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to >>>>> be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by >>>>> the members of almost any other profession"
The author says much the same as what I said; is he, a self-declared >>>>> atheist, also defending religion?
...
Do you not see the irony in that ? whether intentional or not ?
Tbe very possibility of anyone's child being abused, more especially
in such a context should never arise in the first place. This shouldn't >>>> be the first thing that people have to consider.* Emphasising
that "objectively your child is less likely to be abused by a Catholic >>>> or Anglican priest in the west *today*, than...." simply reminds people >>>> that they were abused in the past
* It's true of course, that it was precisely because in the
past, parents never even considered the possibility that their
children could be being abused, that allowed the situation to
persist. However the point is, that it should never have been
necessary; and shouldn't be necessary now, for parents to
suspect or ever have to worry about the possibility of their
child being abused, in the first place.
I have pointed this out to you in the past but it seems to
little or any effect.
That might just be something to with the fact that you post so much
rubbish about subjects where you clearly haven't a clue what you are
talking about.
Simply because you personally are seemingly incapable of understanding
something, does not thereby make it rubbish.
Although apparently as you're better qualified, perhaps you'd like to
help out your perplexed co-religionist Nugent there, by explaining
precisely what is meant by the exhortation
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
bb
Given events of say the last 40 or so years, in Ireland, the UK
and the USA certainly, the Catholic Church simply has no "good news"
to share with anyone. You personally believe yourself to be
assured of life everlasting in Heaven, providing you keep to
the rules. And good for you; as a lot of people will secretly
envy you the inner contentment that brings.
However your personal salvation does not depend on your ever
mentioning your faith to strangers; at least outside of an
evangelistic context. More especially in the present
climate where you can only ever give succour to the
Church's critics; given the Churches regrettable recent
history.
It really is rather surprising that you cannot see that for
yourself.
OK, against my better judgement, I'll make one last effort to explainIt is absolutely clear, and (apart from the externality of the forgiveness) an atheist such as myself can agree about remorse and redemption, in principle at least.
some of this stuff to you in very simple terms.
Mainstream Christian denominations (Protestant and Catholic)
distinguish between the *act* of sin and the *person* committing that
act; what is sometimes expressed as "hate the sin, love the sinner".
In regards to the act of sin, that is always wrong; sexually abusing
children is wrong and sinful, no ifs or buts, no excuses. Similarly,
covering up the abuse of children is wrong and sinful, no ifs or buts,
no excuses.
In regards to the person carrying out the act, when they are doing so
they are committing sin and deserving condemnation. If they continue
to carry out the act, they continue to commit sin and deserve
condemnation. If however, they face up to the sinfulness that they
have been guilty of; if they are genuinely remorseful for it and they
resolve to stop committing that act, then they can receive
forgiveness.
We must never forget or minimise the awfulness of the abuse that
children suffered from priests and the dreadful way in which the
hierarchy tried to cover it up. That should not prevent us from giving
full support and encouragement to those who recognise the wrong they
did and genuinely desire to prevent such things from happening again.
Hopefully, that will make things a little bit clearer for you, but I
won't hold my breath.
Not that I mind people having a go where it is warranted - and God
only knows, there are plenty of areas where the Catholic Church
deserves attacking, but I have this *thing* about accuracy, and it
bugs me when people post stuff that is simply wrong.
That', BTW, is not just about Catholicism, it's in regard to *any* subject where I happen to be have some knowledge.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 11:14:54 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
You posted the comforting conclusion but omitted these words:
So why the concentration on Catholic priests and brothers? Perhaps I am
unduly cynical, but I believe that all institutions attempt to cover up
institutional wrongdoing although the Roman Catholic church has had a
higher opinion of itself than most, and thus a greater tendency to lie
about these things. Because it is an extremely authoritarian institution
at least within the hierarchy, it is also one where there were few
checks and balances on the misbehaviour of the powerful. The scandal has
been loudest and most damaging in Ireland, because it came along just at
the moment when the church was losing its power over society at large,
and where it was no longer able to cover up what had happened, but still
willing to try. Much the same is true in the diocese of Boston which was
bankrupted by the scandal.
unquote
All totally correct. Now please show where I have ever said anything contradictory to that.
I don't think that author is competent to say whether the safeguards
against paedophilia are among the tightest or most effective in the
world -
I think as a professional journalist working with a mainstream
newspaper, he is almost certainly more competent than you and your
seat of the pants claims.
it requires Inquiries and evidence-taking to reach any reliable
conclusion.
Which is exactly what has been done e.g.
https://www.catholicbishops.ie/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/RSM-Ireland-Review-of-Safeguarding-Final-Report-November-2024-ISSUED.pdf
I don't really expect you to read it as, while it does identify a few
areas for further improvement, the positive acknowledgement it gives
the Catholic Church overall for improvements that have been achieved
is probably not to your taste.
But paedophilia in a school involves victims who can eventually escape
and try to move on with their lives. In religion, the victims are part
of a cult, a community that makes its members feel beholden to their
leaders for their entire lives or risk being cast into the (illusory)
outer darkness.
Religions do not encourage whistle-blowing or complaints or exposing
wrongdoing especially on the part of religious leaders. Complacency is
certainly encouraged.
I can't speak for other denominations but the Catholic Church nowadays certainly does encourage whistleblowing complaints and exposing
wrongdoing by *anyone* in regard to children (and also vulnerable
adults).
You say above that these things require research, you really, really
should take your own words to heart and do a little bit of research
yourself before you mouth off about things where you don't know what
you're talking about.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 11:19:58 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6tnjkhfv8t98s7r9brfcna6l1o0its67c@4ax.com...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 10:50:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vhjnjk1oc16nm6luo4vbl1bam0ov7e651a@4ax.com...
I posted this article in a previous discussion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
"Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are
now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle >>>>> of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to >>>>> be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by >>>>> the members of almost any other profession"
The author says much the same as what I said; is he, a self-declared >>>>> atheist, also defending religion?
...
Do you not see the irony in that ? whether intentional or not ?
Tbe very possibility of anyone's child being abused, more especially
in such a context should never arise in the first place. This shouldn't >>>> be the first thing that people have to consider.* Emphasising
that "objectively your child is less likely to be abused by a Catholic >>>> or Anglican priest in the west *today*, than...." simply reminds people >>>> that they were abused in the past
* It's true of course, that it was precisely because in the
past, parents never even considered the possibility that their
children could be being abused, that allowed the situation to
persist. However the point is, that it should never have been
necessary; and shouldn't be necessary now, for parents to
suspect or ever have to worry about the possibility of their
child being abused, in the first place.
I have pointed this out to you in the past but it seems to
little or any effect.
That might just be something to with the fact that you post so much
rubbish about subjects where you clearly haven't a clue what you are
talking about.
Simply because you personally are seemingly incapable of understanding
something, does not thereby make it rubbish.
Although apparently as you're better qualified, perhaps you'd like to
help out your perplexed co-religionist Nugent there, by explaining
precisely what is meant by the exhortation
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
bb
Given events of say the last 40 or so years, in Ireland, the UK
and the USA certainly, the Catholic Church simply has no "good news"
to share with anyone. You personally believe yourself to be
assured of life everlasting in Heaven, providing you keep to
the rules. And good for you; as a lot of people will secretly
envy you the inner contentment that brings.
However your personal salvation does not depend on your ever
mentioning your faith to strangers; at least outside of an
evangelistic context. More especially in the present
climate where you can only ever give succour to the
Church's critics; given the Churches regrettable recent
history.
It really is rather surprising that you cannot see that for
yourself.
OK, against my better judgement, I'll make one last effort to explain
some of this stuff to you in very simple terms.
Mainstream Christian denominations (Protestant and Catholic)
distinguish between the *act* of sin and the *person* committing that
act; what is sometimes expressed as "hate the sin, love the sinner".
In regards to the act of sin, that is always wrong; sexually abusing
children is wrong and sinful, no ifs or buts, no excuses. Similarly,
covering up the abuse of children is wrong and sinful, no ifs or buts,
no excuses.
In regards to the person carrying out the act, when they are doing so
they are committing sin and deserving condemnation. If they continue
to carry out the act, they continue to commit sin and deserve
condemnation. If however, they face up to the sinfulness that they
have been guilty of; if they are genuinely remorseful for it and they
resolve to stop committing that act, then they can receive
forgiveness.
We must never forget or minimise the awfulness of the abuse that
children suffered from priests and the dreadful way in which the
hierarchy tried to cover it up. That should not prevent us from giving
full support and encouragement to those who recognise the wrong they
did and genuinely desire to prevent such things from happening again.
Hopefully, that will make things a little bit clearer for you, but I
won't hold my breath.
In regard to Todal, I'm a big fan of the Serenity Prayer and recognise
Todal as that which cannot be changed. I do, however, keep pointing
out the stuff he posts that is easily identified as rubbish in the
hope that he may eventually realise how much of an idiot he is making
of himself and perhaps pull back a bit.
.
You lived in a tough area, didn't you?
Inner-city Liverpool was a lot less rough than that.
The school was in Lewisham in prefabs as it was bombed out during the >>war. It was horrendously snobby, it was grant aided and is now a public >>school.
Eric Ambler and James Cleverly are old boys.
Nice.
But way out of my league!
On 2025-12-12, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 11:59:59 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-12, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 10:00:50 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-12, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 11:54:00 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual >>>>>>>>>> errors that people make and defending that about which they are making
In just this current thread alone:On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example. >>>>>>>>>>>Unless you continue to defend your religionThat assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>>>>>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM. >>>>>>>>>>>>
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so >>>>>>>>>>>> easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>>>>>>>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"... >>>>>>>>>>
the factual errors.
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if >>>>>>>> you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction >>>>>>>> of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and >>>>>>>> realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It >>>>>>>> was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral >>>>>>>> authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating >>>>>>>> this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion >>>>>>>> at every opportunity.
Not letting up with your constant lying I see. You also said in that post:
"what we must do is face up to those wrongs, learn from them and do >>>>>>> our utmost not to make the same mistakes again. I think the Church >>>>>>> has done well in that regard - it is now, for example, classed as >>>>>>> world best in its child protection measures."
I posted this article in a previous discussion:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
"Certainly the safeguards against paedophilia in the priesthood are >>>>>> now among the tightest in the world. That won't stop a steady trickle >>>>>> of scandals; but I think that objectively your child is less likely to >>>>>> be abused by a Catholic or Anglican priest in the west today than by >>>>>> the members of almost any other profession"
The author says much the same as what I said; is he, a self-declared >>>>>> atheist, also defending religion?
Firstly, yes of course he very clearly is defending religion, >>>>>specifically the Roman Catholic Church. That's not even remotely >>>>>debatable, so it's peculiar that you're even asking.
You have a peculiar idea of what defending means.
Not for the first time, I'm going to mention that many UK libraries >>>provide free access to the full Oxford English Dictionary via the
oed.com website (you don't need to go to the library, just login using >>>your library card number):
defend, verb: transitive. To speak or write in defence or support
of (a person or thing); to support against criticism, disagreement,
or attack; to justify, to vindicate. Also intransitive.
Maybe I need you new glasses or something; can you show me where the
said anything about correcting errors or misconceptions equates to
defence?
As previously observed, logic isn't your strong point.
You also might point out where I have ever justified or vindicated the
child abuse carried out by priests or the cover-up by the hierarchy.
Oh look, since you've been caught lying again
you're trying to move
the goalposts, again.
That is literally what he is doing in that article. He would certainly >>>say that he was if you asked him. Are you seriously claiming otherwise?
Yes, I do not consider somebody setting the record straight about an
organisation as any kind of support for or defence of that
organisation as in my example about the Nazis that you studiously
avoid.
Ok, so you're doing a Norman and, haven been proven a liar, are trying
to redefine words with special meanings of your own invention in order
to Kobayashi Maru yourself out of this hopeless scenario.
I also note that you still haven't answered my question about me
correcting a false claim about the number of Jews slaughtered as
amounting to defending the Nazis.
That's twice you've noted that. Do I win a prize if it gets noted
three times?
No, you just highlight that you don't want answered because you have
to either a) accuse me of defending Naziism or b) accept that the
arguments you have made about be defending my religion are simply
badly formed. I'm fairly sure it is b) but you haven't the strength of
character to admit when you got something wrong.
You're projecting again. I'm not going to follow you down your little
Nazi cul-de-sac, no matter how desperately you want me to.
Secondly, are you labouring under some bizarre misapprehension that >>>>>the job of atheists is to constantly attack religion?
Not at all. It's just that when I previously posted an article about
levels of child abuse, you claimed the author had "skin in the game"
because despite his extensive academic qualifications, he is a
Catholic; I thought that an article by a non-Catholic who regards the
intellectual authority of the Catholic Church as "emotionally
repugnant" might be more acceptable to you but apparently not because
you don't consider him a 'real' atheist.
I didn't say that. I said it was a misleading over-simplification
to just describe him as an atheist and nothing more. Just as your >>>description of our previous interaction is also a misleading
omission.
And what does whether Andrew Brown has a disinterested viewpoint
or not have to do with anything?
It stops you from handwaving the article away on the basis that the
author is a Catholic with "skin in the game".
Quelle surprise, another lie from you. Two in fact, in one go.
Impressive - unless they're down to your stupidity and forgetfulness.
Have you already forgotten that the point is your false claim to have
not defended Catholicism, not whether the defences that you did post
were justified or not?
Nice try but I did not post any *defences*.
Everyone reading this thread (if anyone still is) knows that's a lie.
Why do you even bother? Are you deliberately trying to cultivate a
reputation as a compulsive liar? What do you get out of that? I really
hope I'm not unwittingly aiding you in some sort of humiliation kink.
Do you somehow not realise that by trying to support your defences,
you are admitting that they exist?
No answer...
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:t8mojkdilkm76062lhbq9oq9bbbqng571g@4ax.com...
Not that I mind people having a go where it is warranted - and God
only knows, there are plenty of areas where the Catholic Church
deserves attacking, but I have this *thing* about accuracy, and it
bugs me when people post stuff that is simply wrong.
That', BTW, is not just about Catholicism, it's in regard to *any* subject >> where I happen to be have some knowledge.
UseNet is a public forum.
This means it's open to everybody.
Including people who are genuinely stupid; and people who are
simply pretending to be stupid
For this reason it would be stupid for anyone to necessarily
believe *anything* they read on UseNet. Certainly without
some form of verification, by way of links etc.
This includes what *I* post; and what *you* post.*
For this reason, very little of what anyone ever posts on UseNet
is ever going to change anything ever ; or change anyone's mind
about anything.
Do you understand this ?
bb
By the same token of course, you're under no obligation to believe
this argument either. But then to satisfactorily refute it, you'd
need to produce a convincing argument as to why anyone should
necessarily trust the word of complete strangers, under any
circumstances.
On 12 Dec 2025 at 16:58:49 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 11:19:58 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote: [..]
OK, against my better judgement, I'll make one last effort to explainIt is absolutely clear, and (apart from the externality of the forgiveness)
some of this stuff to you in very simple terms.
Mainstream Christian denominations (Protestant and Catholic)
distinguish between the *act* of sin and the *person* committing that
act; what is sometimes expressed as "hate the sin, love the sinner".
In regards to the act of sin, that is always wrong; sexually abusing
children is wrong and sinful, no ifs or buts, no excuses. Similarly,
covering up the abuse of children is wrong and sinful, no ifs or buts,
no excuses.
In regards to the person carrying out the act, when they are doing so
they are committing sin and deserving condemnation. If they continue
to carry out the act, they continue to commit sin and deserve
condemnation. If however, they face up to the sinfulness that they
have been guilty of; if they are genuinely remorseful for it and they
resolve to stop committing that act, then they can receive
forgiveness.
We must never forget or minimise the awfulness of the abuse that
children suffered from priests and the dreadful way in which the
hierarchy tried to cover it up. That should not prevent us from giving
full support and encouragement to those who recognise the wrong they
did and genuinely desire to prevent such things from happening again.
Hopefully, that will make things a little bit clearer for you, but I
won't hold my breath.
an
atheist such as myself can agree about remorse and redemption, in principle at >least.
The trolling you are suffering about the presumed formulaic nature of >confession etc is just trolling and you should really ignore it.
Now, can you justify the purchase of indulgences for me?
Or, better, ignore
such unkind provocation.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 23:03:47 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-12, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
You also might point out where I have ever justified or vindicated the
child abuse carried out by priests or the cover-up by the hierarchy.
Oh look, since you've been caught lying again
You have developed this rather nasty habit of accusing me of lying
when I simply challenge something you have said.
It stops you from handwaving the article away on the basis that the
author is a Catholic with "skin in the game".
Quelle surprise, another lie from you. Two in fact, in one go.
Impressive - unless they're down to your stupidity and forgetfulness.
Please show the lie that I have told.
On 12/9/25 16:54, Andy Walker wrote:
On 09/12/2025 15:28, Adam Funk wrote:I dunno why you think you shouldn't discuss technical stuff in the
On 2025-12-09, Jeff Gaines wrote:-a-a-a-a-aThere is a much simpler proof in [combinatorial] game theory, of >> which the [so-called] surreal number system is [a small but important]
Can you "prove" that 1 plus 1 is two?ISTR that it took Whitehead and Russell a few hundred pages to get
there, but yes.
part, of which the usual arithmetic is [a small but important] part.-a The >> interested reader can refer to the collected works of John Conway, of
"Life" fame;-a it's a bit esoteric for this group.
group.
Usenet contributors have always had a technical bias, they
are mainly from a computer background.
FWIW, I was introduced to Conway, Game of Life, by my Uncle who hadKnuth's short book is worth reading, but is not [IMHO] the best
zero mathematical training (he was the headmaster of a special
school). With respect to surreal numbers, Knuth is of course a god
to many of us. I've never looked at them, but they certainly look
like something worth looking at.
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 09:47:49 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:t8mojkdilkm76062lhbq9oq9bbbqng571g@4ax.com...
Not that I mind people having a go where it is warranted - and God
only knows, there are plenty of areas where the Catholic Church
deserves attacking, but I have this *thing* about accuracy, and it
bugs me when people post stuff that is simply wrong.
That', BTW, is not just about Catholicism, it's in regard to *any* subject >>> where I happen to be have some knowledge.
UseNet is a public forum.
This means it's open to everybody.
Including people who are genuinely stupid; and people who are
simply pretending to be stupid
For this reason it would be stupid for anyone to necessarily
believe *anything* they read on UseNet. Certainly without
some form of verification, by way of links etc.
This includes what *I* post; and what *you* post.*
For this reason, very little of what anyone ever posts on UseNet
is ever going to change anything ever ; or change anyone's mind
about anything.
Do you understand this ?
Oh I understand it perfectly. What I don't understand is why you feel
this compulsion to lecture me about something that I already know.
Mind you, I disagree with your last comment.
changing their minds, and I have seen that on various occasions, my
own mind on some things has been changed by discussion on Usenet. I
don't simply believe everything what people say or take them at face
value but when someone presents what seems like a reasonable argument
that contradicts something I believe, I take time to reflect on it and
try to find out more about it to see whether that argument stands up
better than what I previously believed.
It's known as having an open mind - you should try it sometime.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 12:23:16 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (2,024K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,176 |
| Posted today: | 1 |