|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: I don't believe all of the Bible
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
If a person wants his readers to believe something which he doesn't believe himself, I would say that was propaganda rather than history.
To be history I think the person has to believe it himself as well as intend the readers to do so. But I agree of course that whether the events are in fact accurately described is not the determining factor.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I fully share your pain, and with most people around the world will breath a sigh of deep relief should he fail to get elected. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I am loathe to include Trump's rantings within the genre of "history" and would much prefer to place it within the confines of "demagoguery": " An appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side. Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people."
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I fully share your pain, and with most people around the world will breath a sigh of deep relief should he fail to get elected.
I am loathe to include Trump's rantings within the genre of "history" and would much prefer to place it within the confines of "demagoguery": " An appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side. Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people."
I think you are taking the word "history" in rather a naive way. "History" in terms of genre refers to a kind of writing--specifically, to a kind of writing that purports to tell the truth about what happened in the past. The word "purports" is the key here. It is possible to have false history; these are commonly known as "lies." But in terms of genre they are still "history"--that is the area of the library they'd be filed in (if a library, for whatever reason, thought it worthwhile to keep on hand a volume of lies). They would not be filed under "science" or "theology" or even "fiction," much as our fingers would itch to put them in the last. The question is what kind of thing they are trying to be--not whether they do a crappy job of it or not.
(That, by the way, is why it is impossible to lie in the genre of fiction. Fiction is a whole genre dedicated to telling tales of things that never were; you cannot have "true fiction" or "lying fiction" anymore than you can have true nursery rhymes or false nursery rhymes. The genre itself rules out truth claims of any sort.)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
If a person wants his readers to believe something which he doesn't believe himself, I would say that was propaganda rather than history.
To be history I think the person has to believe it himself as well as intend the readers to do so. But I agree of course that whether the events are in fact accurately described is not the determining factor.
As to whether it's possible to have false history, see my post just above. But in answer to your other point, it gets sticky to make decisions based on whether you think someone believes it themselves or not. I would guess that Trump does on some level believe most of what he says, even the shining examples of galactic ridiculousness; I have known others of his type, and their thinking is some of the most confused and distorted I have ever run across. In short, I think we overestimate most historical figures who are putting out false claims; I suspect most of them couldn't navigate their way out of a logical paper bag. They have many talents, but honesty (even privately, with themselves) and clear thinking aren't always among them.
[ 08. November 2016, 16:53: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I have never seen anyone with less self-awareness than Trump. Only this quality allows him to deny the facts (even when there is videotape of it!). He is also an expert at gaslighting -- the insistence upon his own reality. It is you, the hearer, who heard wrong or are crazy or isn't thinking properly.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped quote:
But in terms of genre they are still "history"--that is the area of the library they'd be filed in (if a library, for whatever reason, thought it worthwhile to keep on hand a volume of lies)
Sorry to persist in my naivete, but I think I would want to make a distinction between history and an historical document. For example, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is a document of some historical significance but is a work of deliberate fiction.
Similarly the fetid imaginings of Trump are worth preserving as historical documentation on the 2016 election, but to classify his "birthing" claims as being of the historical genre seems to me bizarre. It may be, of course, that librarians in Alabama and the like might think and classify differently, but not, one would hope, in New England.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Hosting
Let's be a little careful here. Using a contemporary example to illustrate a point about literary genres, etc., is fine, even helpful. So no problem with that. But if the contents of a post are purely political, then the the US Election Thread over in Purgatory is a more appropriate location.
Thanks, everybody.
Mamacita, Keryg Host anticipating a very long day and evening
[ 08. November 2016, 18:25: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Lamb Chopped quote:
But in terms of genre they are still "history"--that is the area of the library they'd be filed in (if a library, for whatever reason, thought it worthwhile to keep on hand a volume of lies)
Sorry to persist in my naivete, but I think I would want to make a distinction between history and an historical document. For example, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is a document of some historical significance but is a work of deliberate fiction.
Similarly the fetid imaginings of Trump are worth preserving as historical documentation on the 2016 election, but to classify his "birthing" claims as being of the historical genre seems to me bizarre. It may be, of course, that librarians in Alabama and the like might think and classify differently, but not, one would hope, in New England.
I think I'm not being very clear today. What I mean is simply this:
Genre is determined by the FORM of a document, not by the content. So I can say "that's a play, this is a novel, that's a poem" just by noting a few key features. This allows me to sort the various documents into their proper cubbyholes in a bookstore or library. I am not reading the things, I am not making any judgements about their truth value, literary value, or deserve-to-be-part-of-the-human-race value. I am just sorting by format.
There is a genre called "history." To be included in that genre (at least until the librarians pitch you out as actually subtracting meaning from the universe), you need to meet several criteria:
1. Be focused on some aspect of the past, whether it be ancient past or fairly recent past.
2. Make truth claims about your subject (whether you're lying or not doesn't affect whether you wind up in this shelving unit. It MAY affect whether a shocked library patron decides to check your book out permanently and devote it to barbecue use)
3. Have at least a minimal pretense of evidence-based backup. This means footnotes and/or bibliography, or at the very least "so-and-so told me so." You can still be an out-and-out liar (subject to hungry library patron's actions, above) but if you have a bare minimum of pretense to evidence, you end up in the "history" section. No doubt temporarily.
What DOESN'T make it into history?
1. Anything not focused on a past event (so, nothing that is primarily speculation about the future, or rulebooks for how to play poker, or Thai cookbooks).
2. Anything that makes no truth claims. So historical fiction winds up in a different area altogether--it is not attempting to convince you of anything about the past. It is simply entertaining you. Similarly "sex secrets of lost Atlantis" won't wind up here, as the author has no interest in Atlantean history at all. It is far more likely to wind up in the occult section, or the sex section, or in a special area reserved for total loony tunes (if such a section exists in your library, you have my glad permission to fill it with the Protocols and with certain tweets as well).
3. Anything that hasn't got the least pretensions to any evidence at all--not a single footnote, no bibliography, no first-person narrative, no "John told me". In other words, simple assertion without any appeal to any other source other than the writer's imagination. Such a book is not only going to fail out of the history section, but it's likely to fail out of the library as a whole unless someone can browbeat the author into accepting a "fiction" label. If the author refuses, it's likely to end up supporting one end of the check-out desk, as having insufficient credentials to go anywhere else.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
The "God revealed in the words of Jesus" insists on condemning those who don't measure up (like calling people fools) to an eternity of pain. Genocide? A mere nothing by comparison.
As a subset of being the God revealed in Jesus, then yeah. It's VERY typical hyperbole agingjb and where do you get an eternity of pain from?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Lamb Chopped
Make truth claims about your subject (whether you're lying or not doesn't affect whether you wind up in this shelving unit. It MAY affect whether a shocked library patron decides to check your book out permanently and devote it to barbecue use)
The part in brackets is what I was disagreeing with. I entirely agree that you can have mistaken history, but I don't think you can have deceptive history. For me history means that the author's intentions include that of giving an honest account of events.
So the people asked by Stalin to describe the Russian revolution without including Trotsky were in my view writing propaganda, not history.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Auuugghhh. Look, I'm only talking about the GENRE. I'm not talking about the quality, or whether it's counterfeit, or what have you. In fact....
If someone counterfeits a dollar bill, you face much the same problem. What is the "genre" of this thing--what kind of object is it? Answer: It is currency. It is freaking COUNTERFEIT currency, but that's still the genre it falls into. It is not a duck, or taco,or a TV set.
That's all we're saying. You may consider Jonah to be completely and totally WRONG. But in terms of genre, it shows the signs of being intended as straightforward narration of a thing-that-really-happened. Just as Herodotus does--the "father of history".
And plenty of people laugh their asses off at the things Herodotus reported as true.
It's just a different kind of question altogether.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You may consider Jonah to be completely and totally WRONG. But in terms of genre, it shows the signs of being intended as straightforward narration of a thing-that-really-happened.
Can you differentiate this from the parables of Jesus that don't have a "THIS IS A PARABLE!" wrapper? (wrapper i.e. "the kingdom of heaven is like....") Do you accept that parables without such clear evidence of parability must be historical?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There are more markers than just "The kingdom of God is like..." One of the most prominent is the lack of a name--people are identified by roles or characteristics instead. The only exception to this is Lazarus and the rich man, and that one is iffy, since Lazarus means "God is my help," which is precisely his role in the parable (that is, it's not a random unrelated name like "Jonah," which means "dove"). So this particular parable may not be an exception to the otherwise 100% rule either.
Jonah shows no such markers to my knowledge. And the parables of Jesus may showcase the unexpected, but I'm having a really hard time coming up with one that showcases an actual miracle.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You may consider Jonah to be completely and totally WRONG. But in terms of genre, it shows the signs of being intended as straightforward narration of a thing-that-really-happened.
Can you differentiate this from the parables of Jesus that don't have a "THIS IS A PARABLE!" wrapper? (wrapper i.e. "the kingdom of heaven is like....") Do you accept that parables without such clear evidence of parability must be historical?
I dunno, I 'm kind of a recreational folk story buff,and to me both Job and Jonah gave all the cadences of a folk tale. I can see some potential for Jonah being a real person who attracted a lot of folklore, but the story itself has the rhythms of a story told for its philosophical content rather than its historical accuracy.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Sure. But you can have both together. Folk story style rhythms don't by any means rule out an attempt at historicity.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
That's a lot different than saying, "This is definitely a true to history account."
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
To contrast, the Gospels have kind of a patchwork feel , which is how you would expect a collection of interviews to feel.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
That's a lot different than saying, "This is definitely a true to history account."
True. You have to decide that on other grounds entirely.
Folk story rhythms are awesome--but they are not evidence in either direction. They merely prove that the author (or the storytellers who went before the final author) was a damn good writer.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I was responding primarily to your statement that the book of Jonah has the hallmarks of a "straightforward matter-of-fact historical narrative". I do not see that as a definite, at all.
Now it seems like you are downgrading you" definitely typical historical style " to "possibly a true story told in a folkloric style."
[ 09. November 2016, 05:16: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Ugh. No. That's not what I meant.
Bear with me, you know why my brain is scrambled right now.
Look, I think the one who wrote Jonah intended us to see it as something-that-actually-happened, that is, history. But I also think he (probably a he, but who knows?) intended us to learn stuff from this particular story. Like not to be xenophobic idiots. The two goals are not incompatible. The moral of tonight's horrible happenings could easily be "don't count your chickens until they hatch" (God help us). The fact that it practically pounds that moral into our heads does not stop it being a true story as well. I wish it did.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Now the point about the style. Maybe I can make better sense if I give an analogy. (Or maybe not.)
I have a stock of funny stories (don't we all?) which are factually true, but which make great dinner table conversation. A couple of them are enshrined in the Quotesfile. And you can bet I've done my best to polish the rhythms, the word choice, the comedic timing, etc etc. I flatter myself that they bear a distant resemblance to the genius that is Jonah (cue grumbles: Yes, you DO flatter yourself, don't you? ...)
Anyway, the fact that the stories have literary polish on them doesn't tell you anything about whether they actually happened or not. For that you'd need to know my character, or else be an eyewitness. From the style all you can tell is that I wanted to drive a point home (usually a funny one, but occasionally a serious one).
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
As I see it there are two issues here which are getting confused:
1. The classificatory system- in this case literary genre.
2.The classification in which the book of Jonah might be placed.
The advantage of classificatory systems is that they help us to sort out our ideas, the disadvantages are that the boxes defined by the system can be inadequate to cover and differentiate between the variety of items to be classified. A relatively small number of boxes has the virtue of simplicity but can result in shoe-horning some of the items. A large number of boxes designed to recognise more nuances can be so numerous that the system loses its usefulness. In my opinion the genre “history” in Lamb Chopped’s system is too broad and lacking utility if it includes Jonah and Gibbon. As to the second question we need to know how many classificatory options there are before we can discuss into which box Jonah might be appropriately lodged.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I don’t believe everything I read in the bible because I think the writers at times tell downright fibs.
Consider the anointing of David by Samuel. (The genre, by the way, is history).
According to the book of Samuel, Samuel anointed the boy, David, as King of Israel because God had revoked his favour from Saul (1Samuel 16). Subsequently, things went on as before. David continued to mind the sheep and Saul remained King. Samuel did not, for example, inform the people that Saul had had his anointed status withdrawn and transferred it to God’s new choice, David. Curiously, David, inadvisably one might have thought, became a member of the court and soothed Saul with his psalm-singing. It is not clear whether Israel had one or two anointed Kings.
David later emerged as a warrior, fell out with Saul and rebelled against him. In the course of the struggle with Saul David’s men found the King in, shall we say, a compromising position, and invited David to kill him. David, however, refused to do so: “seeing he is the Lord’s anointed”. To my mind this is rather odd, given the circumstances of his own anointing. Odd, too, that he should be so fastidious regarding Saul’s legitimacy given his rebellion against him. The incident concluded with David falling to the ground in fealty to Saul and telling Saul he did not kill him because he was the Lord’s anointed. (1 Samuel 24). But wasn’t David aware he had been so anointed himself? Indeed, he knew his anointing had replaced that of Saul, according to the biblical account.
What I think we are dealing with here is spin-doctoring on behalf of David. IMO David was never anointed by Samuel as a boy, and that he rose to power and influence as a warrior in Saul’s army. Given his greater popularity than the aging Saul he eventually rebelled against him and sought the throne for himself by force. The Philistines killed Saul and after a struggle between the houses of Saul and David the latter became king. David, in other words, usurped the throne by force of arms from the legitimate heirs of Saul. It was embarrassing to the chronicler that David was not a legitimate ruler so he concocted the incident involving Samuel. I also have my doubts about the incident in the cave.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
[
I would be inclined to differentiate between "fibs" and ( how can I put it) "traditional embellishments" . Meaning, I guess, if a folklore element or friend- of -a - friend tale did wind up in the Bible, why did it? (For instance, what were they trying to say about the desired traits of a warrior/ king with the cave story?)
First of all, it's unwise to disregard the importance of folk tales in the formation of a pre- literacy, pre- scientific culture. Stories were all they had to unite each other and teach each other. So, rather than putting myself through convolutions trying to figure out whether a clearly tall tale like Jonah's is a bit of reportage, I stick to asking myself, "What is happening in the story that would make it so important to include in an official collection of oral tradition?"
Second, since the word "folklore" has degenerated to a synonym for "fairy tale" , I was trying to think of a modern literary equivalent, and I came up with something annoyingly American-- the High School required reading list.
For instance: a popular addition to many reading lists is "The Lord of the Files" . If a modern day prophet was discussing a noteworthy person and muttered, "One day he will see the fate of Piggy on the island," not only would that analogy work quickly for those who got the reference, but it would be chillingly specific.
Such a reference doesn't need to be a factoid, it just needs to be powerful and quickly grasped.
[ 09. November 2016, 18:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
(I should explain, the reading list designates works of literature that have manifestly had an impact on a culture's group consciousness. Something you could call a canon, for good reason.)
[ 09. November 2016, 18:32: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Kelly Alves wrote: quote:
For instance: a popular addition to many reading lists is "The Lord of the Files"
A salutary tale of bureaucratic degradation I agree.
But seriously (and sorry for being away for a couple of days), Lamb Chopped is making the same point as I am. Y'all are taking the assertion of genre as being historical way beyond its limited remit.
To some extent as well, it's a shame that the focus has been on mistakes or deliberate invention. The first is always possible, but the latter is problematic in its own right. Much more likely is the involvement of one of the many Jewish techniques I flagged up above which are deployed to bring clarity and explanation to a narrative. And all that is without considering more technical stuff, such as the Jewish love of lexical and philological "clues" within their writing.
Honestly, if you are going to put 2500+ year old writings through the modernist mangle (which is all you can really do on a "me and my bible" basis), then how do you expect to make much sense of any meaning beyond the superficial? Surely the correct plan of action is to determine the nature of the genre (which may need the appreciation of extinct genres or genres that have changed their understanding somewhat). Then you can look at all these things we have been talking about. Always being aware that you may need to revise your views at some point of course.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
The only reason I brought upLOTF is that it made a handy example of something most of us know. The sticking point above seemed to be that "Jesus would't bring up Jonah unless he was an historic figure." Meaning, by inference, that him referring to a fictional figure would somehow make his statements questionable.
To back up the idea that Jesus wasn't making stuff up, I guess, LC said the book was written in a clearly historical style. I pointed out that said style didn't really match the other clearly historical styles in the Bible, and seemed to have more in common with recorded oral folklore ( like the stories in Genesis) She then said all that meant was there was no way of telling either/ or, which was quite different than what she said before.
I just don't see the problem with the actual historical Jesus who actually died and rose also being a knowledgeable person who knew how to use a metaphorical example.
Nigel's breakdown helps a lot.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Nigel's breakdown helps a lot.
Huh? .... ... ... Hahahahahaha! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
(This really should go into the quotes file.)
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Nigel's breakdown helps a lot.
My psychiatrist and my wife both thought so too.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
(I was waiting for that.)
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
