Hey all,
Nothing much, i just want to share a video of a band i discovered just the other day because they are SO GOOD. well, i like them, and i think they're awesome. So, here's one of their songs for you to listen to/watch.
Posts
7 hours ago
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
A Note to my English Teachers and Enforces of the 'New Essay' in General.
Murfin and Ray believe that:
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS!? (If we take it as law, which it obviously is not as my sheet from ext. English from which i got this says believe quite clearly, but it fits with the general contemporary definition of an essay) Well . . .
I insist on telling English teachers NSW over (and every other English teacher who will make us write essays full of what and how about texts and areas of study), we, the students, as essayists, should not really be exhaustively, technically examining a subject. This is exactly what you guys all make us do, with the intended audience being very small. Actually, the intended audience comprised only of our one teacher, and possibly other students, but simply so that their own works, aimed only at you also, may be improved.
We could make this argument to the board of studies . . .
Actually, i think the main idea would be to not call these essays essays, as they do not really fit the definition of an essay. (Talk to our Extension English class for an exhaustive , somewhat abstract, contemporary definition of 'the essay')
Thank you and goodnight.
I'll be off looking for some creative inspiration . . .
an essayist makes no claim to an exhaustive technical examination of a subject;
rather, they seek to record their thoughts and rumination son a topic at hand
for a general audience.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS!? (If we take it as law, which it obviously is not as my sheet from ext. English from which i got this says believe quite clearly, but it fits with the general contemporary definition of an essay) Well . . .
I insist on telling English teachers NSW over (and every other English teacher who will make us write essays full of what and how about texts and areas of study), we, the students, as essayists, should not really be exhaustively, technically examining a subject. This is exactly what you guys all make us do, with the intended audience being very small. Actually, the intended audience comprised only of our one teacher, and possibly other students, but simply so that their own works, aimed only at you also, may be improved.
We could make this argument to the board of studies . . .
Actually, i think the main idea would be to not call these essays essays, as they do not really fit the definition of an essay. (Talk to our Extension English class for an exhaustive , somewhat abstract, contemporary definition of 'the essay')
Thank you and goodnight.
I'll be off looking for some creative inspiration . . .
My Thus-Far Unnamed Story: Part 1
To continue in my avoidance of doing ncessary homework, I've settled upon writing you, my readers, a little story. With my keen foresight, i see it being absolutely terrible, having no plot line, and resembling my joke, the punch line of which was "I need a punch line" - or something along those lines. Feel free to discontinue reading, but without further ado i present [title to be inserted once story is complete, possibly never to be inserted due to lack of imagination].
Once there was a tiny little ant in existence. This tiny little ant was posisbly not in existence anymore - one can never know these things - but was, at his time of existence, very happy that his story had managed to escape a steroetyped beginning.
He was an unusual ant, not bent into the cliche form of living only within the world of ants, but rather, feeling himself not to be an insignificant figure in the world's history simply due to his size, had a broad world view and was a particulalrly opinionated tiny little ant. He had delved into the world beyond the anthill and no longer kept contact with his inferior peers, or for that matter, any of the ants he had once known.
The tiny little ant now lived in a tree, with an owl, as he had heard they were wise creatures (and many of them was called a parliament, so he had heard, and he thought if he could voice his opinions to one, then his illustrious career as an "agent of change" in the world might begin). There also lived in the tree a stick insect who would, along with the carmeleon which also lived there, provide the tine little ant with hours of amusement through their acts of ingenious camoflage. Lastly, there lived a little red robbin. Such animals usually lived in North America, but this was no ordinary little red robbin: she did not like to conform, and so had moved to the most extreme opposite she could bear. This happened to be Australia, where the owl with which the tiny little ant lived, lived. The tiny little ant and the little red robbin got on splendidly because of their mutual hatred of appearing to be a stereotype, but the red robbin had no other strong opinions formed, and looked to the tiny little ant for his inevitable opinion on anything for which the little red robbin thought he needed an opinion on.
All in all, this group of 5 very different animals got on very well, the owl keeping to himself in the topmost branches of the tree for most of the day, the stick insect and carmeleon coming up with new trickss involving ctheir camoflage with which to startle passing seagulls (whom they enjoyed teasing immensly) and the tiny little ant and the little robbin coming up with clever games with wich they pass the days away (for although the little red robbin had no strogne opinions, she was a very clever little bird).
Hope you enjoyed part oen of my story!! I've decided to publish it in instalments, whenever i run dry of material for blogging, but still wish to post. I envisage it as being very exciting to discover what will happen to the tiny little ant and his friends (of which the little red robbin is indupitably the most developed character thus far). Watch this space!
Alyssa.
Once there was a tiny little ant in existence. This tiny little ant was posisbly not in existence anymore - one can never know these things - but was, at his time of existence, very happy that his story had managed to escape a steroetyped beginning.
He was an unusual ant, not bent into the cliche form of living only within the world of ants, but rather, feeling himself not to be an insignificant figure in the world's history simply due to his size, had a broad world view and was a particulalrly opinionated tiny little ant. He had delved into the world beyond the anthill and no longer kept contact with his inferior peers, or for that matter, any of the ants he had once known.
The tiny little ant now lived in a tree, with an owl, as he had heard they were wise creatures (and many of them was called a parliament, so he had heard, and he thought if he could voice his opinions to one, then his illustrious career as an "agent of change" in the world might begin). There also lived in the tree a stick insect who would, along with the carmeleon which also lived there, provide the tine little ant with hours of amusement through their acts of ingenious camoflage. Lastly, there lived a little red robbin. Such animals usually lived in North America, but this was no ordinary little red robbin: she did not like to conform, and so had moved to the most extreme opposite she could bear. This happened to be Australia, where the owl with which the tiny little ant lived, lived. The tiny little ant and the little red robbin got on splendidly because of their mutual hatred of appearing to be a stereotype, but the red robbin had no other strong opinions formed, and looked to the tiny little ant for his inevitable opinion on anything for which the little red robbin thought he needed an opinion on.
All in all, this group of 5 very different animals got on very well, the owl keeping to himself in the topmost branches of the tree for most of the day, the stick insect and carmeleon coming up with new trickss involving ctheir camoflage with which to startle passing seagulls (whom they enjoyed teasing immensly) and the tiny little ant and the little robbin coming up with clever games with wich they pass the days away (for although the little red robbin had no strogne opinions, she was a very clever little bird).
Hope you enjoyed part oen of my story!! I've decided to publish it in instalments, whenever i run dry of material for blogging, but still wish to post. I envisage it as being very exciting to discover what will happen to the tiny little ant and his friends (of which the little red robbin is indupitably the most developed character thus far). Watch this space!
Alyssa.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Lest We Forget
Just a little tribute to all our ANZACs, not just those that fought at Gallipoli or at the Western front, but also on the Kokoda Trail and Tabrook (sorry can't spell), our Vietnam Vetrens and all the other soldiers who have fought for Australia.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Just a Little Story
The following is an extract from Mark Sholtez's blog on myspace. Pretty funny story.
(He's a jazz artist fyi lol)
I have been doing so much writing lately and nowhere near enough playing live so last weekend I thought I would go and play a little lo-key gig in a local piano bar. The kind of place where the drinks are expensive and the piano player provides a little background music for no other reason but to justify the drink prices. The perfect venue to run a few of the new tunes and the occasional lounge version of a classic 80's hair band hit, purely for my own amusement.In the years leading up to having a record deal I have done a lot of these kind of gigs [probably a thousand] and had a lot of funny conversations with patrons in various states of lucidity but what happened the other night has got to be one of my favorites.Mid way through my second set I had a woman approach the piano and abruptly ask me, "Who sings that LOVE ME FOR THE COOL song?"I sheepishly responded with, "Is it Mark Shol…tez?" She immediately replied with, "No, that's not it." Her friend then piped in with, "Sholtez. Mark Sholtez. That's it." "Can you play that song? You know. Baby what you've got to do. . . ."Part of me wanted to tell them that it's my song; but they were so quick to respond I thought I would just play along and see what happened. I offered to "give it a go" and as I started singing the first verse they both seemed happy enough and walked back to the bar singing along.When I finished the song the first woman came back to the piano and proclaimed, "That was pretty good. Not as good as the original though. That guy has a beautiful voice. We've seen him in concert a couple of times." She then asked me if I knew where he was from. Trying desperately not to laugh I replied, "I'm pretty sure he lives here in Brisbane."She looked around the room and then back at me, dropped a five-dollar bill in the tip jar and said, "He wouldn't play in a place like this though." She then walked out of the bar never to return.
(He's a jazz artist fyi lol)
I have been doing so much writing lately and nowhere near enough playing live so last weekend I thought I would go and play a little lo-key gig in a local piano bar. The kind of place where the drinks are expensive and the piano player provides a little background music for no other reason but to justify the drink prices. The perfect venue to run a few of the new tunes and the occasional lounge version of a classic 80's hair band hit, purely for my own amusement.In the years leading up to having a record deal I have done a lot of these kind of gigs [probably a thousand] and had a lot of funny conversations with patrons in various states of lucidity but what happened the other night has got to be one of my favorites.Mid way through my second set I had a woman approach the piano and abruptly ask me, "Who sings that LOVE ME FOR THE COOL song?"I sheepishly responded with, "Is it Mark Shol…tez?" She immediately replied with, "No, that's not it." Her friend then piped in with, "Sholtez. Mark Sholtez. That's it." "Can you play that song? You know. Baby what you've got to do. . . ."Part of me wanted to tell them that it's my song; but they were so quick to respond I thought I would just play along and see what happened. I offered to "give it a go" and as I started singing the first verse they both seemed happy enough and walked back to the bar singing along.When I finished the song the first woman came back to the piano and proclaimed, "That was pretty good. Not as good as the original though. That guy has a beautiful voice. We've seen him in concert a couple of times." She then asked me if I knew where he was from. Trying desperately not to laugh I replied, "I'm pretty sure he lives here in Brisbane."She looked around the room and then back at me, dropped a five-dollar bill in the tip jar and said, "He wouldn't play in a place like this though." She then walked out of the bar never to return.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
1984
The year this post was written . . .
It's really actually quite scary, see, i wasn't born in 1984 but, i travelled back in time and wrote this then brought it back with me and posted it so i could say i wrote it in 1984.
By happy coincidence, it's also about the book '1984' which i was reading today and there was a tragic line in it.
And i thought oh my this man is insane. In fact, thought i, i should have to land one right on this man's face if he were real and survived to the year 2008 and i met him. Ah such a sacrilegious thought for there is nothing more terrible than the destruction of language. He proceeded to say that the great wastage of the language was the verbs and adjectives but they are some of the greatest words!
In fact, it is the creation of language that is a beautiful thing. I would have it no other way.
It's really actually quite scary, see, i wasn't born in 1984 but, i travelled back in time and wrote this then brought it back with me and posted it so i could say i wrote it in 1984.
By happy coincidence, it's also about the book '1984' which i was reading today and there was a tragic line in it.
The destruction of language is a beautiful thing . . .
And i thought oh my this man is insane. In fact, thought i, i should have to land one right on this man's face if he were real and survived to the year 2008 and i met him. Ah such a sacrilegious thought for there is nothing more terrible than the destruction of language. He proceeded to say that the great wastage of the language was the verbs and adjectives but they are some of the greatest words!
In fact, it is the creation of language that is a beautiful thing. I would have it no other way.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Seeking some . . i dunno
Okay everyone, please go here before reading this going-to-be-incredibly-long post:
http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=353#comment-1076 then (or perhaps before)
http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=341
Not to go out and bible bash or get arrogant christian angry, but i hate to seebiblically incorrect views, supported witht he bible, reply to them, then get corrected and told im biblically incorrect (which i found quite distressing to read). So, eric and paul, the only two that read my blog but also two biblically sound guys, if u read this just i seekign some other opinions. Okay.
So that first link up there is an article by this home schooled girl in America called Jocelyn or something. She has very different ideas to me and my primary concern is her idea about God's perfect will for women. Not saying I'm not open to other ideas, just . . . i don't wanna give the wrong idea, so below is my reply to her post, and following her reply to my comment.
MY REPLY:
Sorry to sound very critical in this comment, i think it might just be my nature :)I just wouldn’t want any christian to read their beliefs into the bible. Having only skim read much of this article and part one i may have got the wrong idea, forgive me if i have, particularly in relation to this first point:I hope you are not condoning the belief that men are above women and that we are not created equal; we are created equal but differently. And, although i would need to check this, i believe that men are to be in authority within the church, in regards to teaching the word (something being sadly ignored increasingly by many churches). Your mention of college (or university here in Australia!) being full of unbelievers and partly reason not to go worried me. Our great commission in this world is the preach the gospel to all! How are we to do this if we don’t know any unbelievers because we keep away from them out of fear of influence? (I believe genuine personal relationship to be the most effective form of evangelism.) Influence by the secular world is a concern, but having non-christian friends is not the only way we are influenced by a sinful world. we live in it!I also must, finally before i earn myself the reputation of an arrogant, severely opinionated Christian (perhaps too late?), emphasise that i don’t believe God’s single, utmost role for women is to be married. (1 Corinthians 7). In fact, the previously mentioned passage states that we can do more for the work of God single than we can married! Which appears to some to be against marriage at all - but it’s not. Many women never do marry, and without the cares of a husband or family, that woman can focus wholly on the work of the Lord, such as in mission (not to say only single women may perform mission successfully, but it’s certainly, in a sense, ‘easier’). The most important work that God has set before us is to go into the world and be a light - to have such love for ‘our neighbour’ that our utmost concern for them will be their eternal future and as a result we will share the gospel with them.Again, sorry if this sounds overly critical, but i just wanted to express my concerns. I would be deeply concerned if i have expressed any of this in such a way that it appears biblically incorrect. Plus there’s probably lots of typos sorry, i just can’t seem to type without them.So anyway, just an attempt at constructive criticism, please don’t be offended.
HER REPLY TO ME:
Hi there Allison [Editors note: okay, she called me allison. My name was there cut and copy! lol],Thanks for taking the time to comment and state your opinion. Here is my reply:
“I hope you are not condoning the belief that men are above women and that we are not created equal”First of all, men and women are created quite differently. Some things they are equal in, some things they’re not. Men and Women are absolutely spiritually equal in God’s sight. We are both sinful, and we both need God’s grace to be forgiven. However, the Bible portrays clear and distinct roles for men and women. Men are to be leaders, and women are to be followers. The Bible does NOT say that women are to be submissive to all men. Girls are to be under the authority of their fathers and wives are to be under the authority of their husbands.
I definitely agree with your statement here “men are to be in authority within the church, in regards to teaching the word (something being sadly ignored increasingly by many churches)”. You are absolutely right. This is clearly stated in 1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
I think that the whole idea of “going to college to fulfill the Great Commission” is one of Satan’s lies to get people into the world, especially young ladies, when satan knows their place is at home. Satan is the Father of Lies and he has been working on his techniques of conniving Believers into such situations and beliefs for AGES. You said you didn’t really read my post, and I would encourage you do so AND read the comments.
The Lord can use ANYTHING for His glory. He is God, but that doesn’t mean it’s his PERFECT will for your life!
Are you saying that because you’re not going to a public place you’re not fulfilling the Great Commission? I believe that in everything I do and say, if it is of Christ, it will be a light and a witness that Jesus Christ is reigning in my life and that he is Saviour of ALL! Besides the fact that I know of several young ladies who are taking college at home.
Please make sure you read these comments:http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=353#comment-1073http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=353#comment-1076
As for your comment on i don’t believe God’s single, utmost role for women is to be married. The verse you referred is often used out of context. The verses before Paul talks about remaining single are about man and woman being married, and THEN he says “I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.”, which is him saying it’s not the Lord’s commandment or words. Those are Paul’s, a human’s, words. Not God’s. In the beginning God made woman to be the helpmeet. That is purpose and design. It is God’s plan for woman to marry.
In the Beginning God made Adam and then he made Eve to be a helpmeet to Adam, to her husband, and to bear him children. That is our purpose as women. Not that we are lowly, worthless creatures because we ARE NOT! But did God change our design since the beginning? No.
I don’t believe in single woman being missionaries. I believe that if she is to go to another country, it will be with a man and she will be his helpmeet in that ministry. Just because many great women have done works for the Lord, doesn’t mean that was His plan for her. The Bible says there is God’s acceptable will, his good will, and perfect will (Romans 12: 2). Obviously I would want the perfect will but that is not always possible. Read here: http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=367
I think you are mistaken about your view on single women. In Genesis 2:24 says that a man is to leave is wife and mother and cleave unto his wife and they shall be as one flesh. So if you’re not going to marry, you are to remain under your parents, doing everything to serve the Lord.
Please don’t ever believe that being a wife and mother is burden, which prevents you from focusing on the Lord. I know a great many women who are married and are fully devoted to serving the Lord, and they do. Besides do we realize that when Jesus gave the GC he was only talking to his disciples? Not to the multitudes? Now, this doesn’t mean we aren’t to share the Gospel, because we are. However, it doesn’t mean that everyone is called to the work of a missionary and go out into the world. The Bible says they will know you are my disciples if you love one another - which means if we are Christians people should be able to see that in EVERYTHING we do.
I really do thank you for taking the time to write out all your thoughts on the matter, but in some areas, I think you are truly misinformed and some things you are Biblically-incorrect.
Blessings to you!
So hopefully you can see what I'm worried about?
First I'm worried at her saying anything in the bible is not god breathed or the word of god. I see her point but . . .
I also don't really understand what she means when she says that the verses about remaining single are about being married??If anyone has an idea? But I'll say that the verses that deal with being single are about being single. We've had a sermon on that passage and it was very clear i thought.
I can't coherently form a reply to this statement. But I'm sure its not correct. Please help? Because that is her big thing. She goes on to say that because women are to be submissive and be married we can't go to college or be missionaries while single.
College? University? So while we wait to get married, we hang around home and suck our parents money while we could be out earning a living of our own. I can't remember the reference (sorry) but Paul tells possibly the Thessos (?) to make sure they work by their own hands and are not a burden on anyone. What if the women never marries? Sorry Jocelyn, but you seem to think everyone will marry, but they don't. What happens when her parents die? What does she do then? she's a burden to society.
Plus, as i said in my reply to her article, I don't think God's perfect will is for women to get married! It's for us to tell everyone we can about Him!! If we are held back form doing this because we're single (as in being a missionary) what does that say? She also said:
Which was in reply to my comment on her saying college was full of non-Christians but i said if we cut ourselves off from non-chritsians, how are we to evangelise? No not everyone is to be a missionary, but we are all called to spread God's word, which means in a sense we are all called to be missionaries. Get me? What use is it to say that people will see we are christian by our acts if we don't SEE non-christian people at all. I wasn't saying your actions can't show our faith. In fact i said personal relationship is a very effective form of evangelism, and tied up in that is that person seeing just by the way you live that there is something different.
Ahh guys i feel I'm doing a bad job at presenting a biblically correct view (spec. as i don't quite the bible!). I think I'm pretty bad at explaining stuff but just an opinion would be nice if you can spare the time?? And i don't want to go back and be like HA look at this. I was right do dooo.
So yeah, long post, but important. I'm just worried! I hate biblically incorrect views!! And her going on abotu a helpmeet was a bit perplexing. God designed woman ebcause man needed her so he wasn't lonely, not just to look after the home i thought. If there's some part of the Bible that supports that and i've missed it . . . enlighten me please!! She quote a verse that said something about women (among other things) keeping the home but *sigh* that surely isn't decrying any career for women if they keep home as well? ahhh
(Seriously that bit that said i was truly misinformed was totally upsetting, cos i take it as a comment on everyone who's taught me!)
[Editor's note] okay so this girl has thoroughly confused me as to what she'd saying. I think she'd totally against women havign a career. But she talks of some people who run their own business and says she wants to pursue graphic design and publishing? She quote the bible for her view, but times were different then would be my reply. As i have said, sh'es thoroughly confused me.
:( i'm sad now.
http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=353#comment-1076 then (or perhaps before)
http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=341
Not to go out and bible bash or get arrogant christian angry, but i hate to seebiblically incorrect views, supported witht he bible, reply to them, then get corrected and told im biblically incorrect (which i found quite distressing to read). So, eric and paul, the only two that read my blog but also two biblically sound guys, if u read this just i seekign some other opinions. Okay.
So that first link up there is an article by this home schooled girl in America called Jocelyn or something. She has very different ideas to me and my primary concern is her idea about God's perfect will for women. Not saying I'm not open to other ideas, just . . . i don't wanna give the wrong idea, so below is my reply to her post, and following her reply to my comment.
MY REPLY:
Sorry to sound very critical in this comment, i think it might just be my nature :)I just wouldn’t want any christian to read their beliefs into the bible. Having only skim read much of this article and part one i may have got the wrong idea, forgive me if i have, particularly in relation to this first point:I hope you are not condoning the belief that men are above women and that we are not created equal; we are created equal but differently. And, although i would need to check this, i believe that men are to be in authority within the church, in regards to teaching the word (something being sadly ignored increasingly by many churches). Your mention of college (or university here in Australia!) being full of unbelievers and partly reason not to go worried me. Our great commission in this world is the preach the gospel to all! How are we to do this if we don’t know any unbelievers because we keep away from them out of fear of influence? (I believe genuine personal relationship to be the most effective form of evangelism.) Influence by the secular world is a concern, but having non-christian friends is not the only way we are influenced by a sinful world. we live in it!I also must, finally before i earn myself the reputation of an arrogant, severely opinionated Christian (perhaps too late?), emphasise that i don’t believe God’s single, utmost role for women is to be married. (1 Corinthians 7). In fact, the previously mentioned passage states that we can do more for the work of God single than we can married! Which appears to some to be against marriage at all - but it’s not. Many women never do marry, and without the cares of a husband or family, that woman can focus wholly on the work of the Lord, such as in mission (not to say only single women may perform mission successfully, but it’s certainly, in a sense, ‘easier’). The most important work that God has set before us is to go into the world and be a light - to have such love for ‘our neighbour’ that our utmost concern for them will be their eternal future and as a result we will share the gospel with them.Again, sorry if this sounds overly critical, but i just wanted to express my concerns. I would be deeply concerned if i have expressed any of this in such a way that it appears biblically incorrect. Plus there’s probably lots of typos sorry, i just can’t seem to type without them.So anyway, just an attempt at constructive criticism, please don’t be offended.
HER REPLY TO ME:
Hi there Allison [Editors note: okay, she called me allison. My name was there cut and copy! lol],Thanks for taking the time to comment and state your opinion. Here is my reply:
“I hope you are not condoning the belief that men are above women and that we are not created equal”First of all, men and women are created quite differently. Some things they are equal in, some things they’re not. Men and Women are absolutely spiritually equal in God’s sight. We are both sinful, and we both need God’s grace to be forgiven. However, the Bible portrays clear and distinct roles for men and women. Men are to be leaders, and women are to be followers. The Bible does NOT say that women are to be submissive to all men. Girls are to be under the authority of their fathers and wives are to be under the authority of their husbands.
I definitely agree with your statement here “men are to be in authority within the church, in regards to teaching the word (something being sadly ignored increasingly by many churches)”. You are absolutely right. This is clearly stated in 1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
I think that the whole idea of “going to college to fulfill the Great Commission” is one of Satan’s lies to get people into the world, especially young ladies, when satan knows their place is at home. Satan is the Father of Lies and he has been working on his techniques of conniving Believers into such situations and beliefs for AGES. You said you didn’t really read my post, and I would encourage you do so AND read the comments.
The Lord can use ANYTHING for His glory. He is God, but that doesn’t mean it’s his PERFECT will for your life!
Are you saying that because you’re not going to a public place you’re not fulfilling the Great Commission? I believe that in everything I do and say, if it is of Christ, it will be a light and a witness that Jesus Christ is reigning in my life and that he is Saviour of ALL! Besides the fact that I know of several young ladies who are taking college at home.
Please make sure you read these comments:http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=353#comment-1073http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=353#comment-1076
As for your comment on i don’t believe God’s single, utmost role for women is to be married. The verse you referred is often used out of context. The verses before Paul talks about remaining single are about man and woman being married, and THEN he says “I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.”, which is him saying it’s not the Lord’s commandment or words. Those are Paul’s, a human’s, words. Not God’s. In the beginning God made woman to be the helpmeet. That is purpose and design. It is God’s plan for woman to marry.
In the Beginning God made Adam and then he made Eve to be a helpmeet to Adam, to her husband, and to bear him children. That is our purpose as women. Not that we are lowly, worthless creatures because we ARE NOT! But did God change our design since the beginning? No.
I don’t believe in single woman being missionaries. I believe that if she is to go to another country, it will be with a man and she will be his helpmeet in that ministry. Just because many great women have done works for the Lord, doesn’t mean that was His plan for her. The Bible says there is God’s acceptable will, his good will, and perfect will (Romans 12: 2). Obviously I would want the perfect will but that is not always possible. Read here: http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=367
I think you are mistaken about your view on single women. In Genesis 2:24 says that a man is to leave is wife and mother and cleave unto his wife and they shall be as one flesh. So if you’re not going to marry, you are to remain under your parents, doing everything to serve the Lord.
Please don’t ever believe that being a wife and mother is burden, which prevents you from focusing on the Lord. I know a great many women who are married and are fully devoted to serving the Lord, and they do. Besides do we realize that when Jesus gave the GC he was only talking to his disciples? Not to the multitudes? Now, this doesn’t mean we aren’t to share the Gospel, because we are. However, it doesn’t mean that everyone is called to the work of a missionary and go out into the world. The Bible says they will know you are my disciples if you love one another - which means if we are Christians people should be able to see that in EVERYTHING we do.
I really do thank you for taking the time to write out all your thoughts on the matter, but in some areas, I think you are truly misinformed and some things you are Biblically-incorrect.
Blessings to you!
So hopefully you can see what I'm worried about?
The verses before Paul talks about remaining single are about man and woman
being married, and THEN he says “I speak this by permission, and not of
commandment.”, which is him saying it’s not the Lord’s commandment or words.
Those are Paul’s, a human’s, words
First I'm worried at her saying anything in the bible is not god breathed or the word of god. I see her point but . . .
I also don't really understand what she means when she says that the verses about remaining single are about being married??If anyone has an idea? But I'll say that the verses that deal with being single are about being single. We've had a sermon on that passage and it was very clear i thought.
That is purpose and design. It is God’s plan for woman to marry.
I can't coherently form a reply to this statement. But I'm sure its not correct. Please help? Because that is her big thing. She goes on to say that because women are to be submissive and be married we can't go to college or be missionaries while single.
College? University? So while we wait to get married, we hang around home and suck our parents money while we could be out earning a living of our own. I can't remember the reference (sorry) but Paul tells possibly the Thessos (?) to make sure they work by their own hands and are not a burden on anyone. What if the women never marries? Sorry Jocelyn, but you seem to think everyone will marry, but they don't. What happens when her parents die? What does she do then? she's a burden to society.
Plus, as i said in my reply to her article, I don't think God's perfect will is for women to get married! It's for us to tell everyone we can about Him!! If we are held back form doing this because we're single (as in being a missionary) what does that say? She also said:
However, it doesn’t mean that everyone is called to the work of a
missionary and go out into the world. The Bible says they will know you are my
disciples if you love one another - which means if we are Christians people
should be able to see that in EVERYTHING we do.
Which was in reply to my comment on her saying college was full of non-Christians but i said if we cut ourselves off from non-chritsians, how are we to evangelise? No not everyone is to be a missionary, but we are all called to spread God's word, which means in a sense we are all called to be missionaries. Get me? What use is it to say that people will see we are christian by our acts if we don't SEE non-christian people at all. I wasn't saying your actions can't show our faith. In fact i said personal relationship is a very effective form of evangelism, and tied up in that is that person seeing just by the way you live that there is something different.
Ahh guys i feel I'm doing a bad job at presenting a biblically correct view (spec. as i don't quite the bible!). I think I'm pretty bad at explaining stuff but just an opinion would be nice if you can spare the time?? And i don't want to go back and be like HA look at this. I was right do dooo.
So yeah, long post, but important. I'm just worried! I hate biblically incorrect views!! And her going on abotu a helpmeet was a bit perplexing. God designed woman ebcause man needed her so he wasn't lonely, not just to look after the home i thought. If there's some part of the Bible that supports that and i've missed it . . . enlighten me please!! She quote a verse that said something about women (among other things) keeping the home but *sigh* that surely isn't decrying any career for women if they keep home as well? ahhh
(Seriously that bit that said i was truly misinformed was totally upsetting, cos i take it as a comment on everyone who's taught me!)
[Editor's note] okay so this girl has thoroughly confused me as to what she'd saying. I think she'd totally against women havign a career. But she talks of some people who run their own business and says she wants to pursue graphic design and publishing? She quote the bible for her view, but times were different then would be my reply. As i have said, sh'es thoroughly confused me.
:( i'm sad now.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
When the class of tomorrow moves forward in the world
Seriously guys I'm keen for a group blog. But really there'd be no point and we'd be wasting precious homework time doing nothing. And anyway, then I'd have like THREE blogs to post to lol ooh here's an idea. Lets keep blog whenw e all part. hahaha I'm so lame. That'd fizzle out soon enough. Lamest lamo ever to grace the lamey part of this lame planet with it lame lamey lamest presence. You know i actually couldn't think if the word planet for a minute there. . . . .
Im not keen anymore. Spur of the moment after reading the class of tomorrow =.( Sad smiley with a mole like Turk!
Yeah see all that thoughtful blogging gave me a need to release some of my childish nature on this blog. It's been withheld for so long . . .
Im not keen anymore. Spur of the moment after reading the class of tomorrow =.( Sad smiley with a mole like Turk!
Yeah see all that thoughtful blogging gave me a need to release some of my childish nature on this blog. It's been withheld for so long . . .
Saturday, April 12, 2008
What does it meant to you?
I was just thinking today about the meaning that we all individually connect with words. When i use some words i think of the particular meaning it holds to me and sometimes i venture so far as to think, "I wonder what connotations any one else attaches to this word."
Today i overheard my coach describe a boy on the 17-yrs team we were watching as barrel-chested. And to me, because of the connotations with the word barrel and the shape of the barrel, i think of a 'barrel -chested' person as having this huge curved chest that sticks out. Absurd sounding but you really need to see my mental picture.
Just a thought i leave that with you.
Today i overheard my coach describe a boy on the 17-yrs team we were watching as barrel-chested. And to me, because of the connotations with the word barrel and the shape of the barrel, i think of a 'barrel -chested' person as having this huge curved chest that sticks out. Absurd sounding but you really need to see my mental picture.
Just a thought i leave that with you.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Musings
As I write, the world turns, the stars burn and moon reflect sun, and on the other side of the world the sun shines dandy in the day time. Plates of the Earth's crust shift slowly and trees forever create our gaseous life source. Miraculous new life begins but down the street another life is snuffed out. Huge decisions are made by world leaders while others embark on a trip around the world.
And i sit and type on my computer. Thinking about the music playing in my ears, what word I'll type next, which book to read next and when i can move into my room. While i sit and shape words fruitlessly, achieving nothing but the small pleasure of having recorded my thoughts for others to see, the world moves and things happen.
Most of the time we're oblivious to it all. Selfish beings that we are, we're focusing on the miniscule portion of the world that belongs to our life. But for me, when i think about it, there's another reason.
It just blows my mind when i think of everything happening around the world - down to even the smallest things. In Russia paper is crumpled up and thrown in the bin in frustration while in Argentina a boy scores a goal and runs madly, happily about. Then there's just the simple matter of someone livign in another country. Knowing only Australia as i have for the memorable part of my life, sometimes i just get stumped at the fact that people live their everyday life somewhere else. Germany, the Middle East, rural America. I can see the country, yes, but that they see everyday in and out, living completely differently to me just baffles me. I honestly don't think our brain is able to hold all the thoughts i snatch at momentarily everyday, to their full extent, at the same time. As well as every other thought i have difficulty retaining everyday.
I think as a christian, its way too easy to get caught up in our own christian circle, whether it extends only to your city, state, maybe even coutnry. But i know for me, i have a great church, a great diocese, a wealthy and free country and it's all very easy. And that's when we forget the rest of our family, spread around the world, many of them living much more dificult lives, physically or spiritually, sometimes doing more to advance the gospel than i think i could ever hope for.
And as i come to round up this rambling post, i want to leave you with a thought that a sermon i heard once gave me. When we meet together in Christ's name, we join with all the christians all over the world, now, from the past, all christians.
That made me think "wow".
And i sit and type on my computer. Thinking about the music playing in my ears, what word I'll type next, which book to read next and when i can move into my room. While i sit and shape words fruitlessly, achieving nothing but the small pleasure of having recorded my thoughts for others to see, the world moves and things happen.
Most of the time we're oblivious to it all. Selfish beings that we are, we're focusing on the miniscule portion of the world that belongs to our life. But for me, when i think about it, there's another reason.
It just blows my mind when i think of everything happening around the world - down to even the smallest things. In Russia paper is crumpled up and thrown in the bin in frustration while in Argentina a boy scores a goal and runs madly, happily about. Then there's just the simple matter of someone livign in another country. Knowing only Australia as i have for the memorable part of my life, sometimes i just get stumped at the fact that people live their everyday life somewhere else. Germany, the Middle East, rural America. I can see the country, yes, but that they see everyday in and out, living completely differently to me just baffles me. I honestly don't think our brain is able to hold all the thoughts i snatch at momentarily everyday, to their full extent, at the same time. As well as every other thought i have difficulty retaining everyday.
I think as a christian, its way too easy to get caught up in our own christian circle, whether it extends only to your city, state, maybe even coutnry. But i know for me, i have a great church, a great diocese, a wealthy and free country and it's all very easy. And that's when we forget the rest of our family, spread around the world, many of them living much more dificult lives, physically or spiritually, sometimes doing more to advance the gospel than i think i could ever hope for.
And as i come to round up this rambling post, i want to leave you with a thought that a sermon i heard once gave me. When we meet together in Christ's name, we join with all the christians all over the world, now, from the past, all christians.
That made me think "wow".
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Fact vs Fiction - A "politically Incorrect View" - Ironic? I think so...
Goodness me i just realised i have previously tried to explain my views of global warming on my blog, but did a rather dreadful job of it. Then i thought, just now, 'Ha i have a great piece of writing on just that that i did for English recently!' And so, here is my A grade piece on global warming. (not to boast or anything . . .) You'll be pleased to know, as an aside, that i believe all this blog writing has helped me in my already stronger form of writing: the opinionated piece. Much easier do i find it to compile a piece containing my opinions and beliefs than craft a good creative story.
Fact Vs Fiction - What Will We Risk Our Economy On?
Recent years have shown the development and climax of a Great Fear over the problem of global warming, carbon levels in the atmosphere and climate change. Already world and regional summits have been held and world leaders have promised to spend time and money on cutting national carbon emissions, while the individual tries to do their bit by planting a tomato plant or cycling ten minutes to work. And it’s all due to the environmental frenzy sweeping the world to become the greatest, most useful fad.
Sorry, did I say useful?
I do not by any means claim to possess All Knowledge attached to the subject, but I do mean to make the point that global warming fanatics - believers, call them what you will – need a closer look at the numbers and a nudge – no more of a shove – in the opposite direction.
“The normally begin thus: ‘How does this come about?’ But does it do so? That is what they ought to be asking.”[1]
Indeed they should, although our generation has already answered the question of ‘how’- or so they think – and now searches for ways to slow even stop global warming occurring, before we melt in 10 years time. However, they ought to be asking does it really, will it really, have the effect we think? No. Could you do anything if it did and you tried? No. The effort would be as negligible as an ant pushing against a concrete wall. You may as well just climb to the top and enjoy the view – the amazing view of carbon cycles and the atmosphere and what’s really happening to stop us dying.
I empathise with Michel de Montaigne; things believed because of the sheer number of believers, and those numbers made of ignorant fools, that we should be saying it is not like that, but that if we do, we will be seen as ignorant and it is hard to ‘stiffen your judgment against widely held opinions.’ People are opposing these views though. Over 19,000 American scientists have signed a petition urging the U.S government to reject the Kyoto Protocol because they believe anthropogenic carbon dioxide causes no catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere. That’s their basic reason, and it actually well sums up why we should be ‘stiffening our judgment’ against the view of the Earth’s catastrophic heating.
Firstly, how do I define this widely held view of global warming? From experience I have gathered that people believe i) the ‘greenhouse effect’ will cause the Earth to heat up to a point causing, eventually, death for its inhabitants; ii) that man-made carbon dioxide produces most of the carbon in the world atmosphere, hence anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide causes the greenhouse effect, and thus if we reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the greenhouse effect will be slowed and life on Earth saved. Problem found, solved and forgotten.
And it makes sense.
If we “conveniently” ignore the basic figures.
And basic scientific fact.
Let’ start out big and then hone in on the details.
Firstly, “Global Warming”, the process that supposedly spells Big Trouble for the human race, has actually been happening for ages – since the time of the cave men, more or less continuously and slowly. It is a normal state in the world that occurs between ice ages, and is exactly what should be happening. Be worried if it’s not - it more than likely means another ice age is on its way.
Secondly, the “greenhouse effect”, the process that is supposed to be causing global warming, helps to moderate temperatures on the Earth. In fact, the warming due to the greenhouse effect is limited mainly to night time temperatures; day time high temperatures are negligibly affected. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature here would be minus 18 degrees Celsius – and we’d be frozen stiff. It’s generally accepted that the greenhouse effect is also the primary cause of global warming, but it’s not. The primary cause of global warming is instead, believe it or not, ‘orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun’s output.’[2] Other main causes are atmospheric (i.e. the greenhouse effect: yes it does come in second) and tectonic.
Thirdly, carbon dioxide, known as the main contributor to the greenhouse effect, has had so many wrong things attributed to it, I almost feel sorry for the diatonic gas; I almost don’t know where to begin. Its main trespass these days is its position as the main greenhouse gas and the cause of all out problems.
Wrong!
Any scientist who tells you that is ignoring the 95% of the greenhouse effect that is the result of water vapour – and they’re probably not associated with climatology at all. Water vapour is the reason day time temperatures are so negligibly affected by the greenhouse effect. When held in suspension, water vapour (commonly: clouds) makes for good thermal insulation, but almost as good a reflector as well.
So how much carbon dioxide actually makes up the total amount of greenhouse gases? About 3.618%. How much of the atmosphere actually comprises of carbon dioxide? About 0.04%.
As an aside, carbon dioxide doesn’t actually stay in the atmosphere. It is continually being recycled by trees (which use it to make oxygen, without which we would cease to exist) and the ocean. (Without carbon dioxide, the trees would kick it off pretty quickly.)
The intriguing thing about popular greenhouse theory is that it states the earth’s temperature correlates directly with the amount of carbon dioxide. In the face of these statistics alone that fact is highly disputable, but historically there has been much more CO2 in the atmosphere than exists today, and if we follow popular greenhouse theory, in those times the Earth should have been exceptionally hot.
But it wasn’t – it was no hotter than now. (But alas, if we follow popular theory they’d have no reason to be hot – less man-made carbon dioxide you know!)
Which leads me to my last happy point about carbon dioxide: as humans we are sadly blamed for all of the supposed destruction that will one day collapse in on our once proud heads. Fortunately, if all that is generally believed - except for this last point - were true, it would not be our fault. You seem man-made carbon dioxide is in such minority that all the promised cuts in emission will do nothing to help the world and everything to damage our economy. The amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide that actually contributes to the greenhouse effect is 0.117%. Next to nothing. And besides statistics, there’s other inferential proof. One is that after World War II, there was a boom in industrialization but – a global temperature drop. Another is that recently mid troposphere temperatures (the place to measure if you want to see CO2 having an effect) have decreased slightly as carbon dioxide levels increase. Another? Ice core records suggest that the correlation between temperature and CO2 is actually the reverse of popular belief: carbon dioxide follows temperature changes. If we believe our politicians and the media, something seems to be missing, but on the above evidence, everything fits. Carbon dioxide acquitted and cleared of all charges?
Catastrophic global warming theory is a product of our society and the power of a ‘multitude of believers’ swaying those few left undecided by sheer number. There’s so much proof to the contrary of what those people believe that no one could condense it into two pages (but I try to please). To all misguided souls in the world, please think for yourself and find out the facts! This Great Fear isn’t so frightening after all.
[1] “The Essays: A Selection” - Page 352 - Michel de Montaigne
[2] “The Global Warming Test” – http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/A3b.html – Monte Hieb
Fact Vs Fiction - What Will We Risk Our Economy On?
Recent years have shown the development and climax of a Great Fear over the problem of global warming, carbon levels in the atmosphere and climate change. Already world and regional summits have been held and world leaders have promised to spend time and money on cutting national carbon emissions, while the individual tries to do their bit by planting a tomato plant or cycling ten minutes to work. And it’s all due to the environmental frenzy sweeping the world to become the greatest, most useful fad.
Sorry, did I say useful?
I do not by any means claim to possess All Knowledge attached to the subject, but I do mean to make the point that global warming fanatics - believers, call them what you will – need a closer look at the numbers and a nudge – no more of a shove – in the opposite direction.
“The normally begin thus: ‘How does this come about?’ But does it do so? That is what they ought to be asking.”[1]
Indeed they should, although our generation has already answered the question of ‘how’- or so they think – and now searches for ways to slow even stop global warming occurring, before we melt in 10 years time. However, they ought to be asking does it really, will it really, have the effect we think? No. Could you do anything if it did and you tried? No. The effort would be as negligible as an ant pushing against a concrete wall. You may as well just climb to the top and enjoy the view – the amazing view of carbon cycles and the atmosphere and what’s really happening to stop us dying.
I empathise with Michel de Montaigne; things believed because of the sheer number of believers, and those numbers made of ignorant fools, that we should be saying it is not like that, but that if we do, we will be seen as ignorant and it is hard to ‘stiffen your judgment against widely held opinions.’ People are opposing these views though. Over 19,000 American scientists have signed a petition urging the U.S government to reject the Kyoto Protocol because they believe anthropogenic carbon dioxide causes no catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere. That’s their basic reason, and it actually well sums up why we should be ‘stiffening our judgment’ against the view of the Earth’s catastrophic heating.
Firstly, how do I define this widely held view of global warming? From experience I have gathered that people believe i) the ‘greenhouse effect’ will cause the Earth to heat up to a point causing, eventually, death for its inhabitants; ii) that man-made carbon dioxide produces most of the carbon in the world atmosphere, hence anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide causes the greenhouse effect, and thus if we reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the greenhouse effect will be slowed and life on Earth saved. Problem found, solved and forgotten.
And it makes sense.
If we “conveniently” ignore the basic figures.
And basic scientific fact.
Let’ start out big and then hone in on the details.
Firstly, “Global Warming”, the process that supposedly spells Big Trouble for the human race, has actually been happening for ages – since the time of the cave men, more or less continuously and slowly. It is a normal state in the world that occurs between ice ages, and is exactly what should be happening. Be worried if it’s not - it more than likely means another ice age is on its way.
Secondly, the “greenhouse effect”, the process that is supposed to be causing global warming, helps to moderate temperatures on the Earth. In fact, the warming due to the greenhouse effect is limited mainly to night time temperatures; day time high temperatures are negligibly affected. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature here would be minus 18 degrees Celsius – and we’d be frozen stiff. It’s generally accepted that the greenhouse effect is also the primary cause of global warming, but it’s not. The primary cause of global warming is instead, believe it or not, ‘orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun’s output.’[2] Other main causes are atmospheric (i.e. the greenhouse effect: yes it does come in second) and tectonic.
Thirdly, carbon dioxide, known as the main contributor to the greenhouse effect, has had so many wrong things attributed to it, I almost feel sorry for the diatonic gas; I almost don’t know where to begin. Its main trespass these days is its position as the main greenhouse gas and the cause of all out problems.
Wrong!
Any scientist who tells you that is ignoring the 95% of the greenhouse effect that is the result of water vapour – and they’re probably not associated with climatology at all. Water vapour is the reason day time temperatures are so negligibly affected by the greenhouse effect. When held in suspension, water vapour (commonly: clouds) makes for good thermal insulation, but almost as good a reflector as well.
So how much carbon dioxide actually makes up the total amount of greenhouse gases? About 3.618%. How much of the atmosphere actually comprises of carbon dioxide? About 0.04%.
As an aside, carbon dioxide doesn’t actually stay in the atmosphere. It is continually being recycled by trees (which use it to make oxygen, without which we would cease to exist) and the ocean. (Without carbon dioxide, the trees would kick it off pretty quickly.)
The intriguing thing about popular greenhouse theory is that it states the earth’s temperature correlates directly with the amount of carbon dioxide. In the face of these statistics alone that fact is highly disputable, but historically there has been much more CO2 in the atmosphere than exists today, and if we follow popular greenhouse theory, in those times the Earth should have been exceptionally hot.
But it wasn’t – it was no hotter than now. (But alas, if we follow popular theory they’d have no reason to be hot – less man-made carbon dioxide you know!)
Which leads me to my last happy point about carbon dioxide: as humans we are sadly blamed for all of the supposed destruction that will one day collapse in on our once proud heads. Fortunately, if all that is generally believed - except for this last point - were true, it would not be our fault. You seem man-made carbon dioxide is in such minority that all the promised cuts in emission will do nothing to help the world and everything to damage our economy. The amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide that actually contributes to the greenhouse effect is 0.117%. Next to nothing. And besides statistics, there’s other inferential proof. One is that after World War II, there was a boom in industrialization but – a global temperature drop. Another is that recently mid troposphere temperatures (the place to measure if you want to see CO2 having an effect) have decreased slightly as carbon dioxide levels increase. Another? Ice core records suggest that the correlation between temperature and CO2 is actually the reverse of popular belief: carbon dioxide follows temperature changes. If we believe our politicians and the media, something seems to be missing, but on the above evidence, everything fits. Carbon dioxide acquitted and cleared of all charges?
Catastrophic global warming theory is a product of our society and the power of a ‘multitude of believers’ swaying those few left undecided by sheer number. There’s so much proof to the contrary of what those people believe that no one could condense it into two pages (but I try to please). To all misguided souls in the world, please think for yourself and find out the facts! This Great Fear isn’t so frightening after all.
[1] “The Essays: A Selection” - Page 352 - Michel de Montaigne
[2] “The Global Warming Test” – http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/A3b.html – Monte Hieb
Classy Darcy, Lizzy-Dizzy
Upon my internet browsing yesterday evening i discoevered the following - whichone will only understand if one has read/seen pride and prejudice (insert evil laugh at exclusion of all blog's readers).
Pride and Prejudice
``Marry well'' is Bennet tenet: Bingley singly must remain
Since classy Darcy (Lizzy-dizzy) thinks he's far too good for Jane.
Rummy mummy, jaunty aunty, these would drag both gallants down --
Plus the younger siblings' dribblings over officers in town.
See the specious Wickham trick 'em with his tales of birthright gloom,
See how hideous Lydia's ruin looms before she gets her groom;
Glassy Darcy saves the bacon, shaken out of former pride:
Is he Lizzy's destined love, to shove her prejudice aside?
Has she clout to flout that matron, patroness of priestly coz (He whose ludicrous proposing Rosings rules -- like all he does)?
Darcy oughter court her daughter, destined his through two decades...
``Mulish, foolish girl, remember Pemberley's polluted shades!''
Dare she share his great estate, or can't Aunt Catherine be defied?
Yes! and ere the bells ring jingly, Bingley too shall claim his bride.
- How to Become Ridiculously Well-Read in One Evening, compiled by E. O. Parrott (Viking, Penguin Books, 1985)
[Note that this works best when read with a British accent; also "ludicrous proposing" is the object of the verb "rules".]
Pride and Prejudice
``Marry well'' is Bennet tenet: Bingley singly must remain
Since classy Darcy (Lizzy-dizzy) thinks he's far too good for Jane.
Rummy mummy, jaunty aunty, these would drag both gallants down --
Plus the younger siblings' dribblings over officers in town.
See the specious Wickham trick 'em with his tales of birthright gloom,
See how hideous Lydia's ruin looms before she gets her groom;
Glassy Darcy saves the bacon, shaken out of former pride:
Is he Lizzy's destined love, to shove her prejudice aside?
Has she clout to flout that matron, patroness of priestly coz (He whose ludicrous proposing Rosings rules -- like all he does)?
Darcy oughter court her daughter, destined his through two decades...
``Mulish, foolish girl, remember Pemberley's polluted shades!''
Dare she share his great estate, or can't Aunt Catherine be defied?
Yes! and ere the bells ring jingly, Bingley too shall claim his bride.
- How to Become Ridiculously Well-Read in One Evening, compiled by E. O. Parrott (Viking, Penguin Books, 1985)
[Note that this works best when read with a British accent; also "ludicrous proposing" is the object of the verb "rules".]
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Oh no Sally Morgan! Your Honour Questioned?
"Sally Morgan: claims of fabrication
In a special investigation, Helen Dalley reports on the controversy surrounding the Australian bestseller My Place by Sally Morgan and allegations by the white family at the centre of the book that it's based on fabrications and a distorted and twisted version of events.The Drake-Brockman family dispute Aboriginal author Sally Morgan's account, which tells of their ancestors' alleged harsh treatment and abuse of Aborigines, including Morgan's own grandmother Daisy, who worked for them in the early 1900s. Judith Drake-Brockman, now in her 80s, wants to expose the alleged fabrications written about her family and challenge the moral and factual certainty of My Place. The portrait of black exploitation at the hands of white masters is now an almost universally-accepted cornerstone of Aboriginal history. But the Drake-Brockmans claim that Sally Morgan has distorted and twisted their story in telling her story. "
For full story see Ninemsn
Poor Sally, her integrity questioned? I don't know what to think, who to believe!
In a special investigation, Helen Dalley reports on the controversy surrounding the Australian bestseller My Place by Sally Morgan and allegations by the white family at the centre of the book that it's based on fabrications and a distorted and twisted version of events.The Drake-Brockman family dispute Aboriginal author Sally Morgan's account, which tells of their ancestors' alleged harsh treatment and abuse of Aborigines, including Morgan's own grandmother Daisy, who worked for them in the early 1900s. Judith Drake-Brockman, now in her 80s, wants to expose the alleged fabrications written about her family and challenge the moral and factual certainty of My Place. The portrait of black exploitation at the hands of white masters is now an almost universally-accepted cornerstone of Aboriginal history. But the Drake-Brockmans claim that Sally Morgan has distorted and twisted their story in telling her story. "
For full story see Ninemsn
Poor Sally, her integrity questioned? I don't know what to think, who to believe!
Saturday, April 05, 2008
A bit of Newsy News
Frankly, i'm ratehr sure noone reading this except me cares about this article. But i love Pratchett's books, he is a very funny man, and i highly advise the reading of any.
Author Terry Pratchett is suffering from a rare form of early Alzheimer's disease, it has been revealed.
In a letter published on the website of artist Paul Kidby, the writer said the condition was behind a "phantom stroke" he had earlier this year.
Pratchett said his statement should be interpreted as "I am not dead" and that he had taken the news "philosophically" and "possibly with a mild optimism".
The Discworld author, 59, has sold more than 55 million books worldwide.
"I would have liked to keep this one quiet for a little while," he wrote in a letter headed 'An Embuggerance'.
"But because of upcoming conventions and of course the need to keep my publishers informed, it seems to me unfair to withhold the news."
The author said work was continuing on his latest works, Nation and Unseen Academicals, and that there was "time for at least a few more books yet".
"All other things being equal, I expect to meet most current and, as far as possible, future commitments."
"Frankly, I would prefer it if people kept things cheerful," he continued, saying it was "too soon to tell" if the condition was immediately life-threatening.
Parallel universe
"I will, of course, be dead at some future point, as will everybody else. For me, this maybe further off than you think.
"I know it's a very human thing to say 'Is there anything I can do?' but in this case I would only entertain offers from very high-end experts in brain chemistry."
Article obtained from news.bbc.co.uk
Author Terry Pratchett is suffering from a rare form of early Alzheimer's disease, it has been revealed.
In a letter published on the website of artist Paul Kidby, the writer said the condition was behind a "phantom stroke" he had earlier this year.
Pratchett said his statement should be interpreted as "I am not dead" and that he had taken the news "philosophically" and "possibly with a mild optimism".
The Discworld author, 59, has sold more than 55 million books worldwide.
"I would have liked to keep this one quiet for a little while," he wrote in a letter headed 'An Embuggerance'.
"But because of upcoming conventions and of course the need to keep my publishers informed, it seems to me unfair to withhold the news."
The author said work was continuing on his latest works, Nation and Unseen Academicals, and that there was "time for at least a few more books yet".
"All other things being equal, I expect to meet most current and, as far as possible, future commitments."
"Frankly, I would prefer it if people kept things cheerful," he continued, saying it was "too soon to tell" if the condition was immediately life-threatening.
Parallel universe
"I will, of course, be dead at some future point, as will everybody else. For me, this maybe further off than you think.
"I know it's a very human thing to say 'Is there anything I can do?' but in this case I would only entertain offers from very high-end experts in brain chemistry."
Article obtained from news.bbc.co.uk
Morals and Manners
In true essay genre style the ideas below were truly being tested out as i wrote. I picked a most confusing subject matter for use in my extension English assessment, which was meant to be in the style of first, self-proclaimed essayist Michel De Montaigne. Rebellious, frank, digressive Frenchman that he is, I've grown quite attached to him.
Morals and Manners
Since the late 18th century, rapid change has been occurring worldwide. The industrial revolution began shaping the modern world over 200 years ago – it divided city and country more than ever, started the exponential increase in pollution and set the world on a new course. The kids of today spend more time with machines than with the sunshine and people over the age of 50 – with some exceptions - are more often than not baffled by technology.
One change that’s been overlooked amongst all this though, is that of the decline of etiquette, courtesy and respect, along with the major morals upheld by society for so long. When we look back 200, 100 or even just 50 years, we’re often amazed at the way society demanded people to act. But I look at the world we live in and am shocked by the amount of tolerance granted an individual, and the things that are permissible. Of course etiquette must grow and change with the constantly progressing world – but the manners, respect and ideas behind it need not disappear or become an object of amusement. And in any case, I believe the morals should stay the same.
However, much etiquette has had to evolve to suit a changing world and society. The most obvious is that affecting the relationships and conduct between males and females: the necessity that a man not sit while a lady was standing has become somewhat of a nuisance in the modern age (feminism helped stamp it out too I imagine), and the ‘rule’ of husbands and wives not using each other’s first names in public is a bit much for our more laid back society – particularly in Australia. But however much things have had to change, there are some that changes that are regarded with a certain sadness by myself. Marriage was once held in respect– it was inconceivable that divorce would be relatively easy or even remotely respectable. Living together before marriage brought shame not only to you, but your whole family. Society’s newly developed non-committal, fast paced lifestyle has reduced these attitudes to horrifying memories for some, when we could really take a leaf out of the book of those times.
The courtesy and basic manners that were a part of old style etiquette also seem to have dissolved somewhat with society’s busyness. We don’t have enough time to do everything we need to anymore, so we rush and push and don’t think about anyone else in our haste to just get that next thing done. Of course, it’s not the people that have changed; there’s always been discourteous thoughts, to say the least, beneath every face, it’s just who we are. But I think that society has become more lax in permitting us to behave rudely – it’s not nearly as frowned upon if you don’t return a greeting civilly or speak coarsely (in fact, it’s perfectly acceptable; not like the days when use of the word damn had to be excused).
You see, the basis of etiquette is how to ‘rightfully’ behave in society. It all comes down to, essentially, the respect due to the various people and classes you could come across in life. This was usually applied to an association between people of relatively close rank, or respectable people of society relating to those of even higher rank. Of course the poor were able to be disrespected without any injustice being impinged upon (except that of ethics), but for the middle class and above, respect was expected in due form. Now that our world now much less divided by classes, such rules have virtually disappeared. Except for the odd occasion when we may meet royalty and even there etiquette has been slackening gradually.
I do love a more casual society. Formal and staunch do not suit me in the least and I’m rather glad most of the rules maintaining the old formality are gone. The problem is that the respect and general manners have gone with the rules, and formality does not come with them as a prerequisite. It’s just being polite! As the underlying principle behind manners and etiquette, what I really find sad is the loss in respect required of all. Of course the inequality that the class systems of years ago once imposed meant that anyone below you was worthy of nothing much (if anything) from you. A foolish concept, but I think that if we could somehow combine our egalitarian views with the respect of the past times, a pleasing result could be reached.
However great it would be though, I see this aspired-to, ‘pleasing result’ as nothing more than an impossible dream. The poor are still forgotten and lorded over, no matter how socialist we claim to be, and the rich are worshiped. It is nothing short of wishful Utopia. It is our selfish, self-centered society that is causing its own degradation.
Maybe there’s more behind it all than equal respect for every man. Maybe it’s all in the morals.
Society of the western world was once driven by Judean/ Christian Ethics. Christianity was the western religion, and so people held to the biblical values. But of course this had to change - “Love your neighbor as yourself” is now scoffed at more than ever by a world driven by the individual and the ideology that it is ‘all about me’ – because this was all before the mysteries of the world were unlocked by science and man came to worship himself and science. We knew how it all worked now – or at least would prove it theoretically using the scientific principals – and didn’t need God anymore. And so I believe that it was Christianity behind the older morals and values, because you can see how they’ve been less and less valued since the theory of evolution evolved. Even if everyone is thought of as equal now, I don’t believe it’s a practiced thought and the rest of the values held dear by the world of today are superficial and in a sorry state.
What society needs is to redeem itself. Not by returning to the days when chasing a dog down the street was worthy of a scolding, but by borrowing the simple courtesy or etiquette, respect and morals that were once common. We can make society much more attractive than it is now by combining what we already have in causality and egalitarianism and what we have lost in manners.
Morals and Manners
Since the late 18th century, rapid change has been occurring worldwide. The industrial revolution began shaping the modern world over 200 years ago – it divided city and country more than ever, started the exponential increase in pollution and set the world on a new course. The kids of today spend more time with machines than with the sunshine and people over the age of 50 – with some exceptions - are more often than not baffled by technology.
One change that’s been overlooked amongst all this though, is that of the decline of etiquette, courtesy and respect, along with the major morals upheld by society for so long. When we look back 200, 100 or even just 50 years, we’re often amazed at the way society demanded people to act. But I look at the world we live in and am shocked by the amount of tolerance granted an individual, and the things that are permissible. Of course etiquette must grow and change with the constantly progressing world – but the manners, respect and ideas behind it need not disappear or become an object of amusement. And in any case, I believe the morals should stay the same.
However, much etiquette has had to evolve to suit a changing world and society. The most obvious is that affecting the relationships and conduct between males and females: the necessity that a man not sit while a lady was standing has become somewhat of a nuisance in the modern age (feminism helped stamp it out too I imagine), and the ‘rule’ of husbands and wives not using each other’s first names in public is a bit much for our more laid back society – particularly in Australia. But however much things have had to change, there are some that changes that are regarded with a certain sadness by myself. Marriage was once held in respect– it was inconceivable that divorce would be relatively easy or even remotely respectable. Living together before marriage brought shame not only to you, but your whole family. Society’s newly developed non-committal, fast paced lifestyle has reduced these attitudes to horrifying memories for some, when we could really take a leaf out of the book of those times.
The courtesy and basic manners that were a part of old style etiquette also seem to have dissolved somewhat with society’s busyness. We don’t have enough time to do everything we need to anymore, so we rush and push and don’t think about anyone else in our haste to just get that next thing done. Of course, it’s not the people that have changed; there’s always been discourteous thoughts, to say the least, beneath every face, it’s just who we are. But I think that society has become more lax in permitting us to behave rudely – it’s not nearly as frowned upon if you don’t return a greeting civilly or speak coarsely (in fact, it’s perfectly acceptable; not like the days when use of the word damn had to be excused).
You see, the basis of etiquette is how to ‘rightfully’ behave in society. It all comes down to, essentially, the respect due to the various people and classes you could come across in life. This was usually applied to an association between people of relatively close rank, or respectable people of society relating to those of even higher rank. Of course the poor were able to be disrespected without any injustice being impinged upon (except that of ethics), but for the middle class and above, respect was expected in due form. Now that our world now much less divided by classes, such rules have virtually disappeared. Except for the odd occasion when we may meet royalty and even there etiquette has been slackening gradually.
I do love a more casual society. Formal and staunch do not suit me in the least and I’m rather glad most of the rules maintaining the old formality are gone. The problem is that the respect and general manners have gone with the rules, and formality does not come with them as a prerequisite. It’s just being polite! As the underlying principle behind manners and etiquette, what I really find sad is the loss in respect required of all. Of course the inequality that the class systems of years ago once imposed meant that anyone below you was worthy of nothing much (if anything) from you. A foolish concept, but I think that if we could somehow combine our egalitarian views with the respect of the past times, a pleasing result could be reached.
However great it would be though, I see this aspired-to, ‘pleasing result’ as nothing more than an impossible dream. The poor are still forgotten and lorded over, no matter how socialist we claim to be, and the rich are worshiped. It is nothing short of wishful Utopia. It is our selfish, self-centered society that is causing its own degradation.
Maybe there’s more behind it all than equal respect for every man. Maybe it’s all in the morals.
Society of the western world was once driven by Judean/ Christian Ethics. Christianity was the western religion, and so people held to the biblical values. But of course this had to change - “Love your neighbor as yourself” is now scoffed at more than ever by a world driven by the individual and the ideology that it is ‘all about me’ – because this was all before the mysteries of the world were unlocked by science and man came to worship himself and science. We knew how it all worked now – or at least would prove it theoretically using the scientific principals – and didn’t need God anymore. And so I believe that it was Christianity behind the older morals and values, because you can see how they’ve been less and less valued since the theory of evolution evolved. Even if everyone is thought of as equal now, I don’t believe it’s a practiced thought and the rest of the values held dear by the world of today are superficial and in a sorry state.
What society needs is to redeem itself. Not by returning to the days when chasing a dog down the street was worthy of a scolding, but by borrowing the simple courtesy or etiquette, respect and morals that were once common. We can make society much more attractive than it is now by combining what we already have in causality and egalitarianism and what we have lost in manners.
Friday, April 04, 2008
A trifling matter Indeed
Oh no! I've created my third/fourth blog. it's a crazy obsession of mine when one blog starts to get a bit stale. Don't lsoe faith, despite the fact that i havn't posted for goodness knwos how long. I'll still be using this blog to update on any thoughts of mine i find paricularly intriguing. Trifling Facts is a blog dedicated to the sole purpose of tellign YOU things I learn everyday (or close to it). Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
