Holy Sunday Photos
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Nikon Coolpix L20 10 Megapixels Digital Camera
Next: Going Behind The Grid At 700mm With The Old Wimberly II
From: James Nagler on 9 Apr 2010 09:26 On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:05:06 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >In message <4bbf211c$0$1862$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, Jeff R. ><contact(a)this.ng> writes >> >>A majority is not necessarily correct, but in this case your minority of one >>is certainly out of line. > >OK.. So on a point of English definition the Oxford English Dictionary >is out of line... It is. At least it is and has been for the last 10 years. Go back to the digital OED v2 and look up the definition for Pagan. It is complete with full and unbiased etymology. Then look it up in OED v3, it only says, "One who does not worship The One True God." and that is all it says. Self-serving biased and proselytizing christians have been editing the OED relentlessly for the last 10 years or more. It is no longer a valid reference source and should never be cited as such.
From: Chris H on 9 Apr 2010 09:38 In message <4bbf2a23$0$12241$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, Jeff R. <contact(a)this.ng> writes > >"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message >news:uyat6fLCYyvLFA4t(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >> In message <4bbf211c$0$1862$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, Jeff R. >> <contact(a)this.ng> writes >>> >>>A majority is not necessarily correct, but in this case your minority of >>>one >>>is certainly out of line. >> >> OK.. So on a point of English definition the Oxford English Dictionary >> is out of line... >> > >Well, yes. > Then you have a serious problem with life. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 9 Apr 2010 09:47 In message <ebaur5hbr2v490lfc25elv3eqbls932q1c(a)4ax.com>, James Nagler <jnagler(a)spamproofed.net> writes >On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:05:06 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > >>In message <4bbf211c$0$1862$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, Jeff R. >><contact(a)this.ng> writes >>> >>>A majority is not necessarily correct, but in this case your minority of one >>>is certainly out of line. >> >>OK.. So on a point of English definition the Oxford English Dictionary >>is out of line... > >It is. At least it is and has been for the last 10 years. Go back to the >digital OED v2 and look up the definition for Pagan. It is complete with >full and unbiased etymology. Then look it up in OED v3, it only says, "One >who does not worship The One True God." and that is all it says. I agree. a Pagan is one who >not worship The One True God. However it does not define who The One True God is. As far as I know *EVERY* Monotheist religion KNOWS ABSOLUTELY they are the only one who believe in The One True God..... (and all the others are false) >Self-serving biased and proselytizing christians have been editing the OED >relentlessly for the last 10 years or more. Then there is a real problem. However I doubt that is the case. >It is no longer a valid >reference source and should never be cited as such. I would agree with you. However I can't see the OED getting religious. It is more likely some one has hacked the web site. I was using the printed OED I have here... some years ago there was a special offer on the full OED and I went mad and got one. A lovely book(s)to use. As you say it has the full etymology. Even for the (godless :-) pagans. Actually the etymology for them is fascinating. BTW do you have alink to the OED pages you were looking at? I don't use (didn't know) there was an on line version. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Jeff R. on 9 Apr 2010 09:56 "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:6Tf4iyMU3yvLFAYm(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >>> OK.. So on a point of English definition the Oxford English Dictionary >>> is out of line... >>Well, yes. > Then you have a serious problem with life. > You think? (obviously not) Because I maintain pornography is not (nowadays) "writing about prostitutes." Wow. Just *who* has the serious problem? (Probably the chap with the ostentatious sig. decoration) -- Jeff R.
From: tony cooper on 9 Apr 2010 10:00
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 08:31:19 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >>>>>And to most people images of Catholic nature are closely related to >>>>>pedophila (even in your own parish, Tony) which was the original >>>>>comment >>>> >>>>That's one of your typical "most people" bullshit statements. Most >>>>people have no such feelings about a photograph of a Catholic church >>>>or scene. "Most people", in this case, includes you and maybe six >>>>other wingnuts. At least three of them post here. >>>> >>>>It's interesting to see your defense of pornography, though. It >>>>provides an indication of where you get your jollies. >>> >>>You really are a sad person. And in denial.... >>> >>>Turn on the TV news... There are thousands of people who have come >>>forward about the abuse within the Catholic church. Not to mention the >>>several government enquires in several countries. So that is "me and >>>maybe six wingnuts" ? >> >>The you and six wingnuts, as I clearly stated, are the total number of >>people who see anything pornographic about a photograph of a Catholic >>church. > >Never said it was pornographic. Right. My error. You said images of Catholic nature are closely related to "pedophila" [sic]. I guess you don't feel that images relating to pedophilia are pornographic, but a photograph of a building can be related to pedophilia. That doesn't make you a wingnut, does it? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |