The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Most witches however were not satanists, merely people who didn't follow the churches teachings well enough, annoyed their neighbours. Satanism is a christian sect not a pagan
More often, women who didn't participate in society in a way approved of by a brutal patriarchy. Witch hunts were organised misogyny, with religion as the excuse.
Surprising numbers of men in some countries as well, though overall it was definitely mostly women.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Most witches however were not satanists, merely people who didn't follow the churches teachings well enough, annoyed their neighbours. Satanism is a christian sect not a pagan
More often, women who didn't participate in society in a way approved of by a brutal patriarchy. Witch hunts were organised misogyny, with religion as the excuse.
Yes which is what I was saying, women or men that thought for themselves and didn't agree with christian though. Gallileo being a good example
I saw an article on the BBC website saying that Coca Cola are looking to develop a bottle that is plastic-free.
I thought they already did. A glass bottle.
Used to be an absolute treat when I were a nipper. Pizza Express with Cola in GLASS BOTTLES!!
Glass bottles most definitely THE superior way of enjoying Coca-Cola.
Best is walking a mile on a hot day to get a flat fixed at a gas station somewhere way south of the Mason-Dixon line, finding an old-school coke machine, putting in a thin dime (like I said, old school) and pulling out a perfectly-chilled bottle.
Cold enough that the humidity starts beading up on the outside, and when you pop the cap liquid inside starts forming ice crystals in your mouth as you drink it down. Ambrosia of the gods!
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
Those ferries are going to be travelling at 16 knots at eco speed. Must be significantly slower and more expensive to move goods around the UK coast than drive through the UK? Yet the Remainers are trumpeting this as a great advance in haulage.
Hmmm..... If that is a win for the EU....
saves on fuel for the lorries
I see this as nothing but good news for the UK. Fewer lorries on our roads = less pollution, less congestion and less wear and tear.
I think it is unfortunate for Irish exporters and I don't consider that a good thing. But they will adapt.
I know everyone on here hates Boris, but.... that is almost-genius communication. He does this stuff very well. It's his metier. Getting over a message, hair all over the place, a sense of slight amusement, you happily wait for a decent joke (even if one doesn't arrive), he is a mixture of Blair and Reagan: in terms of his persona. He charms (those who aren't immune to him because of Brexychosis). He's better than Sturgeon, I'd say, at these personal vids.
Starmer is going to struggle against this.
Where Boris falls down is debates, PMQs, and often formal speeches, where his shambolic but charismatic shtick falls apart under sustained questioniing.
It is possible that the social media age favours Boris' technique over the boring but efficient, earnest Starmers and boring but dependable, authentic Sturgeons. We shall see.
My wife absolutely loves him. She has no interest in politics at all, but he makes her smile. She is also protective over him if anyone moans about him on TV. She will always vote for him..
My Mum loves him too. As in, won't hear a word against him and ignores all dissenting voices (including mine, I think Boris has blundered badly over Covid)
He has a solid, super-loyal constituency that is immune to any counter-evidence.
This is a very valuable thing for a politician. Corbyn had it (tho it was not enough). It explains, perhaps, why Boris has won elections that he should have lost. It also explains why Cameron was so dismayed when Boris went Leave in the Referendum, and Cameron thereafter feared it was lost.
Cameron sensed the danger.
Labour have to beat this, I am not sure they can, with Starmer. We shall see.
Used to see quite a lot of Boris. I'd be driving to my plush Islington office in my comfy executive car while he'd be wobbling down to his Doughty Street garret on a beaten-up old Raleigh. Twenty years later, he is master of all he surveys and I am ... err ... not.
To every thing there is a season etc etc.
I know a few lifelong Tory voters who won’t be voting for him again (assuming he runs). FWIW.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Most witches however were not satanists, merely people who didn't follow the churches teachings well enough, annoyed their neighbours. Satanism is a christian sect not a pagan
More often, women who didn't participate in society in a way approved of by a brutal patriarchy. Witch hunts were organised misogyny, with religion as the excuse.
Surprising numbers of men in some countries as well, though overall it was definitely mostly women.
There have certainly been times in history where I would be arrested for saying god is a girl
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
Pagan2 seems to have borrowed most of his opinions on this topic from the oeuvre of Dan Brown.
Piece of history for Republican senators who might wonder how their Wikipedia entry (or whatever the equivalent might then be) will read in half a century’s time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Chase_Smith ... On June 1, 1950, Smith delivered a fifteen-minute speech on the Senate floor, known as the "Declaration of Conscience," in which she refused to name McCarthy directly but denounced "the reckless abandon in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle."[26] She said McCarthyism had "debased" the Senate to "the level of a forum of hate and character assassination."[4] She defended every American's "right to criticize ... right to hold unpopular beliefs ... right to protest; the right of independent thought."[27] While acknowledging her desire for Republicans' political success, she said, "I don't want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the four horsemen of calumny—fear, ignorance, bigotry, and smear."[14] Six other moderate Republican Senators signed onto her Declaration: Wayne Morse of Oregon, George Aiken of Vermont, Edward Thye of Minnesota, Irving Ives of New York, Charles Tobey of New Hampshire, and Robert C. Hendrickson of New Jersey.[26] In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[14] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[24] He also helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign in 1954.[13] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke ... in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[22] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954...
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
Pagan2 seems to have borrowed most of his opinions on this topic from the oeuvre of Dan Brown.
Because I used the phrase free thinkers to indicate they didnt adhere to social norms? Very thin
I'll never really understand the Green figure. Other parties are pretty darn green thesedays, and with 7% they cannot all be radical Corbynistas.
Isn't the SNP figure also "wrong" in the sense that it would mean they were getting 100% of the vote in Scotland? Possibly, but not based on the Scottish polls at the moment
Not nec; Scotland is 8-9% of the population (not sure about voting population).
PS It usually bumps up and down between 4 and 5% of the UK poll which isn't grossly out, esp given the raltively elderly Scottosh population.
Fair enough. For some reason I thought Scotland was about 5% of the population
Based on the most recent mid-year population estimates, Scotland constitutes approximately 8.2% of the UK population. One would assume that it would have a similar proportion of the electorate, given that the demographic profiles of the home nations won't be radically different from one another.
What Scotland certainly doesn't have is a similar proportion of public spending to the rest of the UK, in proportion to population. The most recent figures show public spending on services identifiable to Scotland at 17.3% higher than the UK per capita average, and over 20% above the average for England alone.
Not too surprising, is it, given a) Scotland's much lower population density and far-flung geography, as well as b) much smaller population thus fewer opportunities to benefit from economies of scale?
I don't buy that argument. The Scottish central belt is as urbanised as many other parts of Britain, and other remote parts of the Isles, such as Cumbria or North Devon, West Wales don't get that much more spending.
In health spending terms the East Midlands is the lowest per capita in England, and we have about the same population as Scotland.
There are reasons to spend more on Scotland, including some deeply rooted health and social issues, but population density is not one.
According to the most recent available ONS figures, Scotland's per capita GDP is greater than that of all other UK nations and regions outside the Greater South East, and substantially so in some cases (notably Wales, which gets hosed down with rather less cash than Scotland does.)
There's only one real reason why Scotland gets such a substantial uplift in public sector funding (which it does, however much some very loud people claim to the contrary,) and that's to bribe the population into sticking with the Union. If they were net contributors to the Treasury they'd have voted to leave in 2014.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
The most sensible thing Labour could do right now is swap Dodds and Reeves around. Dodds obviously is highly intelligent but simply does not have the ability to be in such a high-profile position yet.
I saw an article on the BBC website saying that Coca Cola are looking to develop a bottle that is plastic-free.
I thought they already did. A glass bottle.
Used to be an absolute treat when I were a nipper. Pizza Express with Cola in GLASS BOTTLES!!
Glass bottles most definitely THE superior way of enjoying Coca-Cola.
Best is walking a mile on a hot day to get a flat fixed at a gas station somewhere way south of the Mason-Dixon line, finding an old-school coke machine, putting in a thin dime (like I said, old school) and pulling out a perfectly-chilled bottle.
Cold enough that the humidity starts beading up on the outside, and when you pop the cap liquid inside starts forming ice crystals in your mouth as you drink it down. Ambrosia of the gods!
Sounds like hard work.
But it’s true that Coke is best in adversity. I drink it if I have a severe stomach upset: replaces electrolytes, and kills most known bacteria.
Quick query - occasionally yours truly likes to imbed a youtube clip into a comment.
Is this still problematic for some PBers? Don't want to do it IF it's more detrimental than beneficial.
I like it. If it became as numerous as Tweets it might clog the site for some, but it has no effect on my browser at the level it's at, so I say go for it.
(Bracketed are the actual local results in 2016 and 2017)
2016 elections were incredibly static - Tories lost one council, LibDems gained one.
2017 elections were much better for the Conservatives - they gained 11 councils, whilst Labour lost 7.
The elections in May will be a combo of the seats last up in these two sets of elections. On this poll, you would expect the Conservatives to do much better on the 2016 seats - Tories up 9%, Labour up 2. Net +7 for the Tories over 2016.
On the 2017 seats, Tories are down 1%, Labour are up 6% Net +5% for Labour over 2017.
It could make for a difficult night for SKS, especially on those 2016 seats. Even worse is several other recent polls have had the Tories in the low 40's, so it might understate their current strength.
Bear in mind, May could be peak vaccine-boost for Boris. And peak lockdown release boost.
LibDems are down 6% on 2016 and down 9% on 2017. It could be quite a brutal night for them - they won 378 seats in 2016, up 45 and won 441seats in 2017 - down 42.
Polls, charisma and even vaccines are irrelevant. As Boris reaches Churchillian heights, we should remember that Churchill lost to a modest man.
If Labour is struggling, it’s because it doesn’t yet have the vision of the future. That is where Starmer urgently needs to concentrate IMO.
The more I read about him, the more I think Clement Attlee is a significant figure in the history of the 20th Century and for all people rave about Churchill, I think Attlee deserves huge credit and recognition.
Attlee led one of the three radical Governments of the 20th Century (the other two being Asquith and Thatcher) and served with distinction in the wartime coalition (as did other Labour figures, something else often overlooked).
Given the roughly 40 year gap perhaps Johnson sees himself as leading another radical Government - perhaps his example shouldn't be Thatcher but Attlee.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
I'll never really understand the Green figure. Other parties are pretty darn green thesedays, and with 7% they cannot all be radical Corbynistas.
Isn't the SNP figure also "wrong" in the sense that it would mean they were getting 100% of the vote in Scotland? Possibly, but not based on the Scottish polls at the moment
Not nec; Scotland is 8-9% of the population (not sure about voting population).
PS It usually bumps up and down between 4 and 5% of the UK poll which isn't grossly out, esp given the raltively elderly Scottosh population.
Fair enough. For some reason I thought Scotland was about 5% of the population
Based on the most recent mid-year population estimates, Scotland constitutes approximately 8.2% of the UK population. One would assume that it would have a similar proportion of the electorate, given that the demographic profiles of the home nations won't be radically different from one another.
What Scotland certainly doesn't have is a similar proportion of public spending to the rest of the UK, in proportion to population. The most recent figures show public spending on services identifiable to Scotland at 17.3% higher than the UK per capita average, and over 20% above the average for England alone.
Not too surprising, is it, given a) Scotland's much lower population density and far-flung geography, as well as b) much smaller population thus fewer opportunities to benefit from economies of scale?
I don't buy that argument. The Scottish central belt is as urbanised as many other parts of Britain, and other remote parts of the Isles, such as Cumbria or North Devon, West Wales don't get that much more spending.
In health spending terms the East Midlands is the lowest per capita in England, and we have about the same population as Scotland.
There are reasons to spend more on Scotland, including some deeply rooted health and social issues, but population density is not one.
According to the most recent available ONS figures, Scotland's per capita GDP is greater than that of all other UK nations and regions outside the Greater South East, and substantially so in some cases (notably Wales, which gets hosed down with rather less cash than Scotland does.)
There's only one real reason why Scotland gets such a substantial uplift in public sector funding (which it does, however much some very loud people claim to the contrary,) and that's to bribe the population into sticking with the Union. If they were net contributors to the Treasury they'd have voted to leave in 2014.
As we are net contributors to the Treasury, the UK Government is desperate to keep us, cf. Northern Ireland.
I saw an article on the BBC website saying that Coca Cola are looking to develop a bottle that is plastic-free.
I thought they already did. A glass bottle.
Used to be an absolute treat when I were a nipper. Pizza Express with Cola in GLASS BOTTLES!!
Glass bottles most definitely THE superior way of enjoying Coca-Cola.
Best is walking a mile on a hot day to get a flat fixed at a gas station somewhere way south of the Mason-Dixon line, finding an old-school coke machine, putting in a thin dime (like I said, old school) and pulling out a perfectly-chilled bottle.
Cold enough that the humidity starts beading up on the outside, and when you pop the cap liquid inside starts forming ice crystals in your mouth as you drink it down. Ambrosia of the gods!
Sounds like hard work.
But it’s true that Coke is best in adversity. I drink it if I have a severe stomach upset: replaces electrolytes, and kills most known bacteria.
Coke (no ice) was my go-to drink on foreign business trips. That - and fresh lime soda in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh.
I know everyone on here hates Boris, but.... that is almost-genius communication. He does this stuff very well. It's his metier. Getting over a message, hair all over the place, a sense of slight amusement, you happily wait for a decent joke (even if one doesn't arrive), he is a mixture of Blair and Reagan: in terms of his persona. He charms (those who aren't immune to him because of Brexychosis). He's better than Sturgeon, I'd say, at these personal vids.
Starmer is going to struggle against this.
Where Boris falls down is debates, PMQs, and often formal speeches, where his shambolic but charismatic shtick falls apart under sustained questioniing.
It is possible that the social media age favours Boris' technique over the boring but efficient, earnest Starmers and boring but dependable, authentic Sturgeons. We shall see.
My wife absolutely loves him. She has no interest in politics at all, but he makes her smile. She is also protective over him if anyone moans about him on TV. She will always vote for him..
My Mum loves him too. As in, won't hear a word against him and ignores all dissenting voices (including mine, I think Boris has blundered badly over Covid)
He has a solid, super-loyal constituency that is immune to any counter-evidence.
This is a very valuable thing for a politician. Corbyn had it (tho it was not enough). It explains, perhaps, why Boris has won elections that he should have lost. It also explains why Cameron was so dismayed when Boris went Leave in the Referendum, and Cameron thereafter feared it was lost.
Cameron sensed the danger.
Labour have to beat this, I am not sure they can, with Starmer. We shall see.
There's a chunk of that, sure. Though I think we sometimes forget the sense of devil or deep blue sea that many people had about GE2019. Johnson didn't just do badly at the proper politics, he ran away from it. Remember dodging Andrew Neill? The hiding in a fridge? Taking the journo's phone so he didn't have to look at a video that made him sad? BoJo's Great Win was as much about the awfulness of Jezza as anything else.
Right now, Johnson deserves to be riding high. For most people, Brexit is done, hasn't been a problem and has been vindicated. The vaccine strategy has paid off in spades. Personally, I'd quibble a bit round the edges of whether the UK's lead is all that (as @rcs1000 has pointed out, there are zillions of doses coming into the rich world over the spring and summer; and in the meantime, unlocking will be driven by weather as much as anything), but it's a genuine achievement.
It's possible that the government really is flying. It's also possible that it's like they coyote that has run halfway across the canyon and hasn't yet noticed that gravity eventually acts even in cartoons. In the second case, no amount of charisma will save Johnson. And whilst he has a great talent for making people like him, he also has a great record of letting people down.
We shall, as you say, see. Which is what makes it interesting.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
Piece of history for Republican senators who might wonder how their Wikipedia entry (or whatever the equivalent might then be) will read in half a century’s time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Chase_Smith ... On June 1, 1950, Smith delivered a fifteen-minute speech on the Senate floor, known as the "Declaration of Conscience," in which she refused to name McCarthy directly but denounced "the reckless abandon in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle."[26] She said McCarthyism had "debased" the Senate to "the level of a forum of hate and character assassination."[4] She defended every American's "right to criticize ... right to hold unpopular beliefs ... right to protest; the right of independent thought."[27] While acknowledging her desire for Republicans' political success, she said, "I don't want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the four horsemen of calumny—fear, ignorance, bigotry, and smear."[14] Six other moderate Republican Senators signed onto her Declaration: Wayne Morse of Oregon, George Aiken of Vermont, Edward Thye of Minnesota, Irving Ives of New York, Charles Tobey of New Hampshire, and Robert C. Hendrickson of New Jersey.[26] In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[14] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[24] He also helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign in 1954.[13] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke ... in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[22] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954...
Margaret Chase Smith! That name really takes me back, to the 1960s in my case. She ran for President in 1964, losing every Republican primary she entered, but became the first woman whose name was ever placed in nomination before a US major-party political convention.
Maine and New England are still proud of her: an icon of mid-20th-century American politics.
Polls, charisma and even vaccines are irrelevant. As Boris reaches Churchillian heights, we should remember that Churchill lost to a modest man.
If Labour is struggling, it’s because it doesn’t yet have the vision of the future. That is where Starmer urgently needs to concentrate IMO.
Philip Collins writes in NewStatesman this weekend that Starmer needs to study Wilson. He used the 1960s sense of a modern science and technology revolution as his big idea. Despite oxford don Wilson being a rather odd figure to champion this, it worked and made the tired Tories look like yesterday's people.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
You brought up magic to equate witchcraft with the Christian Church. So to you the Reformation is largely just a bloody and murderous struggle over how much magic there should be in a religion, and how one side faking it and so betraying the religion?
And you are sure this is history? Not that in some places on this earth today you will be murdered as a witch for what you believe in?
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
You brought up magic to equate witchcraft with the Christian Church. So to you the Reformation is largely just a bloody and murderous struggle over how much magic there should be in a religion, and how one side faking it and so betraying the religion?
And you are sure this is history? Not that in some places on this earth today you will be murdered as a witch for what you believe in?
I saw an article on the BBC website saying that Coca Cola are looking to develop a bottle that is plastic-free.
I thought they already did. A glass bottle.
Used to be an absolute treat when I were a nipper. Pizza Express with Cola in GLASS BOTTLES!!
Glass bottles most definitely THE superior way of enjoying Coca-Cola.
Best is walking a mile on a hot day to get a flat fixed at a gas station somewhere way south of the Mason-Dixon line, finding an old-school coke machine, putting in a thin dime (like I said, old school) and pulling out a perfectly-chilled bottle.
Cold enough that the humidity starts beading up on the outside, and when you pop the cap liquid inside starts forming ice crystals in your mouth as you drink it down. Ambrosia of the gods!
Sounds like hard work.
But it’s true that Coke is best in adversity. I drink it if I have a severe stomach upset: replaces electrolytes, and kills most known bacteria.
It is one of my top travel tips for travellers trots. Coca cola and potato crisps. Well tolerated by even a tender stomach. The potato crisps contain salt for rehydration, Coke is nearly isotonic, and the sugar aids absorption of the salt. Both are easily found in hot places. Generally much improved within half a day.
Having lived in Georgia, I can attest to @SeaShantyIrish2 description of an old style machine in the American South. Great on a hot day. Glass bottles are simply better to drink out of and keep the beverage cold a little longer too.
I saw an article on the BBC website saying that Coca Cola are looking to develop a bottle that is plastic-free.
I thought they already did. A glass bottle.
Used to be an absolute treat when I were a nipper. Pizza Express with Cola in GLASS BOTTLES!!
Glass bottles most definitely THE superior way of enjoying Coca-Cola.
Best is walking a mile on a hot day to get a flat fixed at a gas station somewhere way south of the Mason-Dixon line, finding an old-school coke machine, putting in a thin dime (like I said, old school) and pulling out a perfectly-chilled bottle.
Cold enough that the humidity starts beading up on the outside, and when you pop the cap liquid inside starts forming ice crystals in your mouth as you drink it down. Ambrosia of the gods!
Sounds like hard work.
But it’s true that Coke is best in adversity. I drink it if I have a severe stomach upset: replaces electrolytes, and kills most known bacteria.
It is one of my top travel tips for travellers trots. Coca cola and potato crisps. Well tolerated by even a tender stomach. The potato crisps contain salt for rehydration, Coke is nearly isotonic, and the sugar aids absorption of the salt. Both are easily found in hot places. Generally much improved within half a day.
Having lived in Georgia, I can attest to @SeaShantyIrish2 description of an old style machine in the American South. Great on a hot day. Glass bottles are simply better to drink out of and keep the beverage cold a little longer too.
Pepsi (no Coke in the country at the time) was my go to rehydration fluid in Yemen when spending a long time on the hot (humid on the coast, bone dry in the Empty Quarter) road.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Transubstantiation is not a feature of many Christian faiths, but I agree magic and religion are intertwined, perhaps more in folk observance than official theology.
That's an interesting piece, but especially the ending:
Though private polling before the elections, which are scheduled for 6 May, has been mixed – described in briefings as abysmal in some places – there are chances for Labour to make some symbolic gains, including the high-profile West Midlands mayoralty.
Whatever the criticism of the leaked “flags and veterans” strategy that drew some derision, advisers are determined there must be a broader push to appeal to voters who have previously voted Conservative.
Polling at the moment shows Starmer has mainly been highly attractive to former Liberal Democrat voters in southern seats. “We might get to Blair levels in the south of England but not win back enough seats to get us a majority,” said one insider.
They're right, of course, to want to try to win over Tory voters, although judging by the squealing over the flags they may struggle to do that without causing the Corbyn Left to revolt.
Failing that, a process of throttling the already weakened Lib Dems doesn't get them very far: Labour risks ending up without enough Con-Lab switchers in the North to start rebuilding the Red Wall, and merely splitting the anti-Con vote in the remaining Southern seats where the LDs still came a respectable second last time around. Come the next election, the end result would be little or no progress for Labour and another Conservative victory.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
You brought up magic to equate witchcraft with the Christian Church. So to you the Reformation is largely just a bloody and murderous struggle over how much magic there should be in a religion, and how one side faking it and so betraying the religion?
And you are sure this is history? Not that in some places on this earth today you will be murdered as a witch for what you believe in?
I think then you misunderstood what I was saying
I don’t think you understood what you were saying. I don’t think other religions and beliefs are a strong point of yours, though it won’t stop you calling them all sorts of thing and not supporting it with evidence.
So let’s turn to yours then. Very interesting. How far back does it go?
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Transubstantiation is not a feature of many Christian faiths, but I agree magic and religion are intertwined, perhaps more in folk observance than official theology.
The magic bit was an aside, most that were convicted of witchcraft it was they didn't marry who they were told to, they knew about herbs, ergot poisoning apparently in the case of salem and others, jealousy. My only comment about ritual magic was if the same was still in force I might find my self victim for following a non christian faith and that yes while we have what we think of as ritual magic so do for example in the case of transubstantiation catholics
Polling at the moment shows Starmer has mainly been highly attractive to former Liberal Democrat voters in southern seats. “We might get to Blair levels in the south of England but not win back enough seats to get us a majority,” said one insider.
.
Makes sense, although that's terrible for the LDs - Labour already have second places in various parliamentary seats where the LDs used to be the second choice at least, and at some point that might filter down to local gov as well.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on black magic, curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
I am uneasy.
There is this guy who supported Trump on the merits of drinking Bleach, yet I find myself liking all his recent posts.
Piece of history for Republican senators who might wonder how their Wikipedia entry (or whatever the equivalent might then be) will read in half a century’s time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Chase_Smith ... On June 1, 1950, Smith delivered a fifteen-minute speech on the Senate floor, known as the "Declaration of Conscience," in which she refused to name McCarthy directly but denounced "the reckless abandon in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle."[26] She said McCarthyism had "debased" the Senate to "the level of a forum of hate and character assassination."[4] She defended every American's "right to criticize ... right to hold unpopular beliefs ... right to protest; the right of independent thought."[27] While acknowledging her desire for Republicans' political success, she said, "I don't want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the four horsemen of calumny—fear, ignorance, bigotry, and smear."[14] Six other moderate Republican Senators signed onto her Declaration: Wayne Morse of Oregon, George Aiken of Vermont, Edward Thye of Minnesota, Irving Ives of New York, Charles Tobey of New Hampshire, and Robert C. Hendrickson of New Jersey.[26] In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[14] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[24] He also helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign in 1954.[13] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke ... in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[22] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954...
Margaret Chase Smith! That name really takes me back, to the 1960s in my case. She ran for President in 1964, losing every Republican primary she entered, but became the first woman whose name was ever placed in nomination before a US major-party political convention.
Maine and New England are still proud of her: an icon of mid-20th-century American politics.
THE LEGEND OF WOOLY SWAMP by Charlie Daniels, Charles Fred Hayward, Fred Edwards, James W. Marshall, John Crain, William J. Digregorio
If you ever go back into Wooly Swamp son you better not go at night There's things out there in the middle of them woods That'd make a strong man die from fright There's things that crawl and things that fly And things that creep around on the ground And they say the ghost of Lucias Clay gets up and it walks around
But I couldn't believe it, I just had to find out for myself And I couldn't conceive it, I never would listen to nobody else No I couldn't believe it, I just had to find out for myself That there's some things in this world you just can't explain
The old man lived in the Wooly Swamp way back in Booger Woods And he never did do a lot of harm in the world But he never did do no good People didn't think too much of him They all thought he acted funny The old man didn't care about people anyway All he cared about was money
He'd stuff it all down in Mason jars and bury it all around And on certain nights if the moon was right He'd dig it up out of the ground. He'd pour it all out on the floor of his shack And run his fingers through it Yeah, Lucias Clay was a greedy old man And that's all there was to it
But I couldn't believe it, I just had to find out for myself . . .
The Clayton boys were white trash they lived over on Carver's Creek They were mean as a snake and sneaky as a cat And belligerent when they'd speak One night the oldest brother said, ya'll meet in the Wooly Swamp later We'll get old Lucias's money and we'll feed him to the alligators
They found the old man out in the back with a shovel in his hand And thirteen rusty Mason jars he just dug up out of the sand. And they all went crazy and they beat the old man And they picked him up off the ground Then they threw him in the swamp and they stood there and laughed Till the black water sucked him down
Then they turned around and went back to the shack And they picked up the money and ran. But they hadn't gone nowhere when they realized They were running in quicksand And they struggled and screamed but they couldn't get away Then just before they went under They could hear that old man laughing In a voice as loud as thunder
Now that's been fifty years ago and if you go back by there again There's a spot in the yard in back of that shack Where the ground is always wet And on certain nights if the moon is right And you're down by the dark footpath You can hear three young men screaming And you can hear one old man laugh
If you ever go back into Wooly Swamp son you better not go at night There's things out there in the middle of them woods That'd make a strong man die from fright There's things that crawl and things that fly And things that creep around on the ground And they say the ghost of Lucias Clay gets up and it walks around
But I couldn't believe it, I just had to find out for myself . . .
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
Well define the difference for a start between a spell and a prayer for something to happen. I cast a love spell for x to fall in love with me. I pray for x to fall in love with me.
Secondly where have I canonized anyone as I said first off we should not be apologising for the executions because they weren't done by us but in a time where witchcraft was claimed to be a crime.
Thirdly I dont think at any point I have said christian bad I merely said some christian practices such as transubstantation are no different to what others call magic rituals
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Transubstantiation is not a feature of many Christian faiths, but I agree magic and religion are intertwined, perhaps more in folk observance than official theology.
The magic bit was an aside, most that were convicted of witchcraft it was they didn't marry who they were told to, they knew about herbs, ergot poisoning apparently in the case of salem and others, jealousy. My only comment about ritual magic was if the same was still in force I might find my self victim for following a non christian faith and that yes while we have what we think of as ritual magic so do for example in the case of transubstantiation catholics
So let’s turn to yours then. We do find it interesting. How far back does it go? Do you share anything with Dithyrambos or the Eleusinian Mysteries?
What I am getting at is, who copied who? Did you copy the Christians/Orphism, or the Christians copy you?
That's an interesting piece, but especially the ending:
Though private polling before the elections, which are scheduled for 6 May, has been mixed – described in briefings as abysmal in some places – there are chances for Labour to make some symbolic gains, including the high-profile West Midlands mayoralty.
Whatever the criticism of the leaked “flags and veterans” strategy that drew some derision, advisers are determined there must be a broader push to appeal to voters who have previously voted Conservative.
Polling at the moment shows Starmer has mainly been highly attractive to former Liberal Democrat voters in southern seats. “We might get to Blair levels in the south of England but not win back enough seats to get us a majority,” said one insider.
They're right, of course, to want to try to win over Tory voters, although judging by the squealing over the flags they may struggle to do that without causing the Corbyn Left to revolt.
Failing that, a process of throttling the already weakened Lib Dems doesn't get them very far: Labour risks ending up without enough Con-Lab switchers in the North to start rebuilding the Red Wall, and merely splitting the anti-Con vote in the remaining Southern seats where the LDs still came a respectable second last time around. Come the next election, the end result would be little or no progress for Labour and another Conservative victory.
The Corbyn Left will find some pretext to revolt whatever Starmer does or doesn't do. Because of that, Starmer has no need to worry about how they react to any action he takes. They are also marginalised within the party because members do not take kindly to a factional sect whose sole focus seems to be to undermine a party leader who is popular amongst the wider electorate.
Incidentally, I don't think that Labour has a hope in hell of winning back the West Midlands mayorality, simply because Street will benefit massively from the benefits of first time mayoral incumbency, as will Burnham.
In terms of opening up again after lockdown given knowledge of vaccination programme roll-out. Where are Israel at in that stage, either in terms of reality or plans? Just out of interest.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Transubstantiation is not a feature of many Christian faiths, but I agree magic and religion are intertwined, perhaps more in folk observance than official theology.
The magic bit was an aside, most that were convicted of witchcraft it was they didn't marry who they were told to, they knew about herbs, ergot poisoning apparently in the case of salem and others, jealousy. My only comment about ritual magic was if the same was still in force I might find my self victim for following a non christian faith and that yes while we have what we think of as ritual magic so do for example in the case of transubstantiation catholics
So let’s turn to yours then. We do find it interesting. How far back does it go? Do you share anything with Dithyrambos or the Eleusinian Mysteries?
What I am getting at is, who copied who? Did you copy the Christians/Orphism, or the Christians copy you?
Well I have nothing particulary in common with christianity so no sure it applies. My faith is my parents and my grand parents and they tell me their parents and grand parents too. Who knows who far it goes back and certainly cant prove it does. As far as anyone who still lives my family all the way back has followed the elder celtic gods. My son however is an aetheist
That's an interesting piece, but especially the ending:
Though private polling before the elections, which are scheduled for 6 May, has been mixed – described in briefings as abysmal in some places – there are chances for Labour to make some symbolic gains, including the high-profile West Midlands mayoralty.
Whatever the criticism of the leaked “flags and veterans” strategy that drew some derision, advisers are determined there must be a broader push to appeal to voters who have previously voted Conservative.
Polling at the moment shows Starmer has mainly been highly attractive to former Liberal Democrat voters in southern seats. “We might get to Blair levels in the south of England but not win back enough seats to get us a majority,” said one insider.
They're right, of course, to want to try to win over Tory voters, although judging by the squealing over the flags they may struggle to do that without causing the Corbyn Left to revolt.
Failing that, a process of throttling the already weakened Lib Dems doesn't get them very far: Labour risks ending up without enough Con-Lab switchers in the North to start rebuilding the Red Wall, and merely splitting the anti-Con vote in the remaining Southern seats where the LDs still came a respectable second last time around. Come the next election, the end result would be little or no progress for Labour and another Conservative victory.
Would love to know where Labour's private polling is "abysmal"! Scotland? If it is anywhere else - sheesh.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
Well define the difference for a start between a spell and a prayer for something to happen. I cast a love spell for x to fall in love with me. I pray for x to fall in love with me.
Secondly where have I canonized anyone as I said first off we should not be apologising for the executions because they weren't done by us but in a time where witchcraft was claimed to be a crime.
Thirdly I dont think at any point I have said christian bad I merely said some christian practices such as transubstantation are no different to what others call magic rituals
Most religions have a strict moral code that would mean you wouldn't pray for something that fell outside of that moral code. Because you wouldn't think you would get it - from God. Few would use prayer for something like manipulating someone to fall in love with you if that ran counter to their natural feelings - and probably wouldn't expect to get it if they did.
I know you haven't said Christian bad - I wasn't accusing you of that, I was making a general point.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
Well define the difference for a start between a spell and a prayer for something to happen. I cast a love spell for x to fall in love with me. I pray for x to fall in love with me.
Secondly where have I canonized anyone as I said first off we should not be apologising for the executions because they weren't done by us but in a time where witchcraft was claimed to be a crime.
Thirdly I dont think at any point I have said christian bad I merely said some christian practices such as transubstantation are no different to what others call magic rituals
Most religions have a strict moral code that would mean you wouldn't pray for something that fell outside of that moral code. Because you wouldn't think you would get it - from God. Few would use prayer for something like manipulating someone to fall in love with you if that ran counter to their natural feelings - and probably wouldn't expect to get it if they did.
I know you haven't said Christian bad - I wasn't accusing you of that, I was making a general point.
You really think that many havent knelt at the altar rail and thought if only bobby/ billie jean fell in love with me? That is naive
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
Well define the difference for a start between a spell and a prayer for something to happen. I cast a love spell for x to fall in love with me. I pray for x to fall in love with me.
Secondly where have I canonized anyone as I said first off we should not be apologising for the executions because they weren't done by us but in a time where witchcraft was claimed to be a crime.
Thirdly I dont think at any point I have said christian bad I merely said some christian practices such as transubstantation are no different to what others call magic rituals
Most religions have a strict moral code that would mean you wouldn't pray for something that fell outside of that moral code. Because you wouldn't think you would get it - from God. Few would use prayer for something like manipulating someone to fall in love with you if that ran counter to their natural feelings - and probably wouldn't expect to get it if they did.
I know you haven't said Christian bad - I wasn't accusing you of that, I was making a general point.
You really think that many havent knelt at the altar rail and thought if only bobby/ billie jean fell in love with me? That is naive
They may well have, but fundamentally in the act of doing that, they were taking that issue and leaving it in God's hands. I am sure it gave them relief, and hey, in some cases, perhaps it worked out and the other person did fall in love with them. That's quite different to casting a spell on the other person - I'm surprised you can't see that.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
Well define the difference for a start between a spell and a prayer for something to happen. I cast a love spell for x to fall in love with me. I pray for x to fall in love with me.
Secondly where have I canonized anyone as I said first off we should not be apologising for the executions because they weren't done by us but in a time where witchcraft was claimed to be a crime.
Thirdly I dont think at any point I have said christian bad I merely said some christian practices such as transubstantation are no different to what others call magic rituals
Most religions have a strict moral code that would mean you wouldn't pray for something that fell outside of that moral code. Because you wouldn't think you would get it - from God. Few would use prayer for something like manipulating someone to fall in love with you if that ran counter to their natural feelings - and probably wouldn't expect to get it if they did.
I know you haven't said Christian bad - I wasn't accusing you of that, I was making a general point.
You really think that many havent knelt at the altar rail and thought if only bobby/ billie jean fell in love with me? That is naive
They may well have, but fundamentally in the act of doing that, they were taking that issue and leaving it in God's hands. I am sure it gave them relief, and hey, in some cases, perhaps it worked out and the other person did fall in love with them. That's quite different to casting a spell on the other person - I'm surprised you can't see that.
Why surprised a spell is merely a prayer with more ceremony
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
Well define the difference for a start between a spell and a prayer for something to happen. I cast a love spell for x to fall in love with me. I pray for x to fall in love with me.
Secondly where have I canonized anyone as I said first off we should not be apologising for the executions because they weren't done by us but in a time where witchcraft was claimed to be a crime.
Thirdly I dont think at any point I have said christian bad I merely said some christian practices such as transubstantation are no different to what others call magic rituals
Most religions have a strict moral code that would mean you wouldn't pray for something that fell outside of that moral code. Because you wouldn't think you would get it - from God. Few would use prayer for something like manipulating someone to fall in love with you if that ran counter to their natural feelings - and probably wouldn't expect to get it if they did.
I know you haven't said Christian bad - I wasn't accusing you of that, I was making a general point.
You really think that many havent knelt at the altar rail and thought if only bobby/ billie jean fell in love with me? That is naive
They may well have, but fundamentally in the act of doing that, they were taking that issue and leaving it in God's hands. I am sure it gave them relief, and hey, in some cases, perhaps it worked out and the other person did fall in love with them. That's quite different to casting a spell on the other person - I'm surprised you can't see that.
Why surprised a spell is merely a prayer with more ceremony
I've made the differences quite plain. If you can't see them, I can only assume you don't want to.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
Well define the difference for a start between a spell and a prayer for something to happen. I cast a love spell for x to fall in love with me. I pray for x to fall in love with me.
Secondly where have I canonized anyone as I said first off we should not be apologising for the executions because they weren't done by us but in a time where witchcraft was claimed to be a crime.
Thirdly I dont think at any point I have said christian bad I merely said some christian practices such as transubstantation are no different to what others call magic rituals
Most religions have a strict moral code that would mean you wouldn't pray for something that fell outside of that moral code. Because you wouldn't think you would get it - from God. Few would use prayer for something like manipulating someone to fall in love with you if that ran counter to their natural feelings - and probably wouldn't expect to get it if they did.
I know you haven't said Christian bad - I wasn't accusing you of that, I was making a general point.
You really think that many havent knelt at the altar rail and thought if only bobby/ billie jean fell in love with me? That is naive
They may well have, but fundamentally in the act of doing that, they were taking that issue and leaving it in God's hands. I am sure it gave them relief, and hey, in some cases, perhaps it worked out and the other person did fall in love with them. That's quite different to casting a spell on the other person - I'm surprised you can't see that.
Why surprised a spell is merely a prayer with more ceremony
Polling at the moment shows Starmer has mainly been highly attractive to former Liberal Democrat voters in southern seats. “We might get to Blair levels in the south of England but not win back enough seats to get us a majority,” said one insider.
.
Makes sense, although that's terrible for the LDs - Labour already have second places in various parliamentary seats where the LDs used to be the second choice at least, and at some point that might filter down to local gov as well.
Strangling the LDs makes no sense for Labour in the context of a future General Election campaign. Both parties don't have that much low-hanging fruit left to pick in the South, especially outside of London, because they're by-and-large so weak there. However, to the extent that they do, their targets are almost mutually exclusive (I think that their only common target is Cities of London and Westminster, and the yellows may not even try that hard there next time because circumstances in the seat in 2019 were obviously exceptional.) Labour trying to grind down the Lib Dem vote in their remaining areas of strength is probably counter-productive because (a) they're unlikely to consolidate the LD vote entirely under their own banner, i.e. it's more probable that they simply split the opposition to the sitting Tory; and (b) evidence of a Lib Dem resurgence makes the prospect of Labour having to lean on the SNP a bit less likely, which can only be helpful to Labour.
The election is a long way away so Labour will evidently be keeping their fingers crossed that the Government simply blows itself up. But if the Tories are ready to put up a serious fight then Labour could do worse than to make some kind of accommodation with the Lib Dems. If they don't try too hard in each others' targets then it could easily be worth an extra ten seats each. And if they don't want to look too chummy with one another then they can always play up another bitch fight over Sheffield Hallam for the sake of appearances.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
Well define the difference for a start between a spell and a prayer for something to happen. I cast a love spell for x to fall in love with me. I pray for x to fall in love with me.
Secondly where have I canonized anyone as I said first off we should not be apologising for the executions because they weren't done by us but in a time where witchcraft was claimed to be a crime.
Thirdly I dont think at any point I have said christian bad I merely said some christian practices such as transubstantation are no different to what others call magic rituals
Most religions have a strict moral code that would mean you wouldn't pray for something that fell outside of that moral code. Because you wouldn't think you would get it - from God. Few would use prayer for something like manipulating someone to fall in love with you if that ran counter to their natural feelings - and probably wouldn't expect to get it if they did.
I know you haven't said Christian bad - I wasn't accusing you of that, I was making a general point.
You really think that many havent knelt at the altar rail and thought if only bobby/ billie jean fell in love with me? That is naive
They may well have, but fundamentally in the act of doing that, they were taking that issue and leaving it in God's hands. I am sure it gave them relief, and hey, in some cases, perhaps it worked out and the other person did fall in love with them. That's quite different to casting a spell on the other person - I'm surprised you can't see that.
Why surprised a spell is merely a prayer with more ceremony
we are just more honest and call it what it is
Hmm I think I just worked out the issue here between us...you believe that magic works without the intervention of a god whereas I dont. Magic working without divinity would be like brainwashing and even if it worked it should be anathema
That's an interesting piece, but especially the ending:
Though private polling before the elections, which are scheduled for 6 May, has been mixed – described in briefings as abysmal in some places – there are chances for Labour to make some symbolic gains, including the high-profile West Midlands mayoralty.
Whatever the criticism of the leaked “flags and veterans” strategy that drew some derision, advisers are determined there must be a broader push to appeal to voters who have previously voted Conservative.
Polling at the moment shows Starmer has mainly been highly attractive to former Liberal Democrat voters in southern seats. “We might get to Blair levels in the south of England but not win back enough seats to get us a majority,” said one insider.
They're right, of course, to want to try to win over Tory voters, although judging by the squealing over the flags they may struggle to do that without causing the Corbyn Left to revolt.
Failing that, a process of throttling the already weakened Lib Dems doesn't get them very far: Labour risks ending up without enough Con-Lab switchers in the North to start rebuilding the Red Wall, and merely splitting the anti-Con vote in the remaining Southern seats where the LDs still came a respectable second last time around. Come the next election, the end result would be little or no progress for Labour and another Conservative victory.
Even if Starmer gets to Blair-like levels of popularity in southern England (and I think it would take about a billion years for that to happen) he's up against a much more formidable Conservative leader than Blair was. I was looking at IPSOS government approval ratings recently, and the average net approval fo governments since they started to measure it in 1977 is -30. The average for the Johnson government since the last election is -12. And the average PM approval rating since 1977 is also -12. Johnson is on -4 since the last election. Labour badly needs for the government to upset middle England's floating voters. And the government is doing just about anything it can to avoid that.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Transubstantiation is not a feature of many Christian faiths, but I agree magic and religion are intertwined, perhaps more in folk observance than official theology.
The magic bit was an aside, most that were convicted of witchcraft it was they didn't marry who they were told to, they knew about herbs, ergot poisoning apparently in the case of salem and others, jealousy. My only comment about ritual magic was if the same was still in force I might find my self victim for following a non christian faith and that yes while we have what we think of as ritual magic so do for example in the case of transubstantiation catholics
So let’s turn to yours then. We do find it interesting. How far back does it go? Do you share anything with Dithyrambos or the Eleusinian Mysteries?
What I am getting at is, who copied who? Did you copy the Christians/Orphism, or the Christians copy you?
Well I have nothing particulary in common with christianity so no sure it applies. My faith is my parents and my grand parents and they tell me their parents and grand parents too. Who knows who far it goes back and certainly cant prove it does. As far as anyone who still lives my family all the way back has followed the elder celtic gods. My son however is an aetheist
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
Well define the difference for a start between a spell and a prayer for something to happen. I cast a love spell for x to fall in love with me. I pray for x to fall in love with me.
Secondly where have I canonized anyone as I said first off we should not be apologising for the executions because they weren't done by us but in a time where witchcraft was claimed to be a crime.
Thirdly I dont think at any point I have said christian bad I merely said some christian practices such as transubstantation are no different to what others call magic rituals
Most religions have a strict moral code that would mean you wouldn't pray for something that fell outside of that moral code. Because you wouldn't think you would get it - from God. Few would use prayer for something like manipulating someone to fall in love with you if that ran counter to their natural feelings - and probably wouldn't expect to get it if they did.
I know you haven't said Christian bad - I wasn't accusing you of that, I was making a general point.
You really think that many havent knelt at the altar rail and thought if only bobby/ billie jean fell in love with me? That is naive
They may well have, but fundamentally in the act of doing that, they were taking that issue and leaving it in God's hands. I am sure it gave them relief, and hey, in some cases, perhaps it worked out and the other person did fall in love with them. That's quite different to casting a spell on the other person - I'm surprised you can't see that.
Why surprised a spell is merely a prayer with more ceremony
we are just more honest and call it what it is
Hmm I think I just worked out the issue here between us...you believe that magic works without the intervention of a god whereas I dont. Magic working without divinity would be like brainwashing and even if it worked it should be anathema
I haven't said I believe that magic works at all - though as a general rule I think life tends to bring us evidence that confirms our beliefs, and I suppose that is true of pagan practices as it is of all beliefs.
To pray to God, whom Christians believe in as 'a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth', and to lay your problems there, and ask for God to deal with them according to his divine wisdom - and his love for the other parties as much as for you, is completely different from invoking 'a god' or other spiritual entities to implement your bidding through a spell. You can't curse anyone through prayer - it's a contradiction in terms.
I am not judging you for the spirituality that you practise, and I am sure you do so carefully with the highest good for all concerned uppermost in your thoughts. But that is not the same for everyone, and none of it is the same as praying to 'God'.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
Well define the difference for a start between a spell and a prayer for something to happen. I cast a love spell for x to fall in love with me. I pray for x to fall in love with me.
Secondly where have I canonized anyone as I said first off we should not be apologising for the executions because they weren't done by us but in a time where witchcraft was claimed to be a crime.
Thirdly I dont think at any point I have said christian bad I merely said some christian practices such as transubstantation are no different to what others call magic rituals
Most religions have a strict moral code that would mean you wouldn't pray for something that fell outside of that moral code. Because you wouldn't think you would get it - from God. Few would use prayer for something like manipulating someone to fall in love with you if that ran counter to their natural feelings - and probably wouldn't expect to get it if they did.
I know you haven't said Christian bad - I wasn't accusing you of that, I was making a general point.
You really think that many havent knelt at the altar rail and thought if only bobby/ billie jean fell in love with me? That is naive
They may well have, but fundamentally in the act of doing that, they were taking that issue and leaving it in God's hands. I am sure it gave them relief, and hey, in some cases, perhaps it worked out and the other person did fall in love with them. That's quite different to casting a spell on the other person - I'm surprised you can't see that.
Why surprised a spell is merely a prayer with more ceremony
we are just more honest and call it what it is
Hmm I think I just worked out the issue here between us...you believe that magic works without the intervention of a god whereas I dont. Magic working without divinity would be like brainwashing and even if it worked it should be anathema
I haven't said I believe that magic works at all - though as a general rule I think life tends to bring us evidence that confirms our beliefs, and I suppose that is true of pagan practices as it is of all beliefs.
To pray to God, whom Christians believe in as 'a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth', and to lay your problems there, and ask for God to deal with them according to his divine wisdom - and his love for the other parties as much as for you, is completely different from invoking 'a god' or other spiritual entities to implement your bidding through a spell. You can't curse anyone through prayer - it's a contradiction in terms.
I am not judging you for the spirituality that you practise, and I am sure you do so carefully with the highest good for all concerned uppermost in your thoughts. But that is not the same for everyone, and none of it is the same as praying to 'God'.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
Well define the difference for a start between a spell and a prayer for something to happen. I cast a love spell for x to fall in love with me. I pray for x to fall in love with me.
Secondly where have I canonized anyone as I said first off we should not be apologising for the executions because they weren't done by us but in a time where witchcraft was claimed to be a crime.
Thirdly I dont think at any point I have said christian bad I merely said some christian practices such as transubstantation are no different to what others call magic rituals
Most religions have a strict moral code that would mean you wouldn't pray for something that fell outside of that moral code. Because you wouldn't think you would get it - from God. Few would use prayer for something like manipulating someone to fall in love with you if that ran counter to their natural feelings - and probably wouldn't expect to get it if they did.
I know you haven't said Christian bad - I wasn't accusing you of that, I was making a general point.
You really think that many havent knelt at the altar rail and thought if only bobby/ billie jean fell in love with me? That is naive
They may well have, but fundamentally in the act of doing that, they were taking that issue and leaving it in God's hands. I am sure it gave them relief, and hey, in some cases, perhaps it worked out and the other person did fall in love with them. That's quite different to casting a spell on the other person - I'm surprised you can't see that.
Why surprised a spell is merely a prayer with more ceremony
we are just more honest and call it what it is
Hmm I think I just worked out the issue here between us...you believe that magic works without the intervention of a god whereas I dont. Magic working without divinity would be like brainwashing and even if it worked it should be anathema
I haven't said I believe that magic works at all - though as a general rule I think life tends to bring us evidence that confirms our beliefs, and I suppose that is true of pagan practices as it is of all beliefs.
To pray to God, whom Christians believe in as 'a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth', and to lay your problems there, and ask for God to deal with them according to his divine wisdom - and his love for the other parties as much as for you, is completely different from invoking 'a god' or other spiritual entities to implement your bidding through a spell. You can't curse anyone through prayer - it's a contradiction in terms.
I am not judging you for the spirituality that you practise, and I am sure you do so carefully with the highest good for all concerned uppermost in your thoughts. But that is not the same for everyone, and none of it is the same as praying to 'God'.
Surely for a religion to be vitalist it begins with worshiping the sun? The sun is the ultimate source of all organic life.
But if you start there, how does it unfold? reconnecting organically to the universe, through worship and ritual. Or requiring the medium of a God?
In which case how is pagan God really any different from Christian God? Or, following chicken and egg, more the likely, the other way around.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Transubstantiation is not a feature of many Christian faiths, but I agree magic and religion are intertwined, perhaps more in folk observance than official theology.
The magic bit was an aside, most that were convicted of witchcraft it was they didn't marry who they were told to, they knew about herbs, ergot poisoning apparently in the case of salem and others, jealousy. My only comment about ritual magic was if the same was still in force I might find my self victim for following a non christian faith and that yes while we have what we think of as ritual magic so do for example in the case of transubstantiation catholics
So let’s turn to yours then. We do find it interesting. How far back does it go? Do you share anything with Dithyrambos or the Eleusinian Mysteries?
What I am getting at is, who copied who? Did you copy the Christians/Orphism, or the Christians copy you?
Well I have nothing particulary in common with christianity so no sure it applies. My faith is my parents and my grand parents and they tell me their parents and grand parents too. Who knows who far it goes back and certainly cant prove it does. As far as anyone who still lives my family all the way back has followed the elder celtic gods. My son however is an aetheist
Thank you.
This being PB and not religous betting maybe if you and luckyguy wish to engage we should do so via dm?
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
Well define the difference for a start between a spell and a prayer for something to happen. I cast a love spell for x to fall in love with me. I pray for x to fall in love with me.
Secondly where have I canonized anyone as I said first off we should not be apologising for the executions because they weren't done by us but in a time where witchcraft was claimed to be a crime.
Thirdly I dont think at any point I have said christian bad I merely said some christian practices such as transubstantation are no different to what others call magic rituals
Most religions have a strict moral code that would mean you wouldn't pray for something that fell outside of that moral code. Because you wouldn't think you would get it - from God. Few would use prayer for something like manipulating someone to fall in love with you if that ran counter to their natural feelings - and probably wouldn't expect to get it if they did.
I know you haven't said Christian bad - I wasn't accusing you of that, I was making a general point.
You really think that many havent knelt at the altar rail and thought if only bobby/ billie jean fell in love with me? That is naive
They may well have, but fundamentally in the act of doing that, they were taking that issue and leaving it in God's hands. I am sure it gave them relief, and hey, in some cases, perhaps it worked out and the other person did fall in love with them. That's quite different to casting a spell on the other person - I'm surprised you can't see that.
Why surprised a spell is merely a prayer with more ceremony
we are just more honest and call it what it is
Hmm I think I just worked out the issue here between us...you believe that magic works without the intervention of a god whereas I dont. Magic working without divinity would be like brainwashing and even if it worked it should be anathema
I haven't said I believe that magic works at all - though as a general rule I think life tends to bring us evidence that confirms our beliefs, and I suppose that is true of pagan practices as it is of all beliefs.
To pray to God, whom Christians believe in as 'a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth', and to lay your problems there, and ask for God to deal with them according to his divine wisdom - and his love for the other parties as much as for you, is completely different from invoking 'a god' or other spiritual entities to implement your bidding through a spell. You can't curse anyone through prayer - it's a contradiction in terms.
I am not judging you for the spirituality that you practise, and I am sure you do so carefully with the highest good for all concerned uppermost in your thoughts. But that is not the same for everyone, and none of it is the same as praying to 'God'.
Ah so praying to my goddess is not the same?
You tell me. If you're praying, the way I've described it, I can't argue a difference. If you're casting a spell, using a charm, a curse, yes there's hella difference.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
Well define the difference for a start between a spell and a prayer for something to happen. I cast a love spell for x to fall in love with me. I pray for x to fall in love with me.
Secondly where have I canonized anyone as I said first off we should not be apologising for the executions because they weren't done by us but in a time where witchcraft was claimed to be a crime.
Thirdly I dont think at any point I have said christian bad I merely said some christian practices such as transubstantation are no different to what others call magic rituals
Most religions have a strict moral code that would mean you wouldn't pray for something that fell outside of that moral code. Because you wouldn't think you would get it - from God. Few would use prayer for something like manipulating someone to fall in love with you if that ran counter to their natural feelings - and probably wouldn't expect to get it if they did.
I know you haven't said Christian bad - I wasn't accusing you of that, I was making a general point.
You really think that many havent knelt at the altar rail and thought if only bobby/ billie jean fell in love with me? That is naive
They may well have, but fundamentally in the act of doing that, they were taking that issue and leaving it in God's hands. I am sure it gave them relief, and hey, in some cases, perhaps it worked out and the other person did fall in love with them. That's quite different to casting a spell on the other person - I'm surprised you can't see that.
Why surprised a spell is merely a prayer with more ceremony
we are just more honest and call it what it is
Hmm I think I just worked out the issue here between us...you believe that magic works without the intervention of a god whereas I dont. Magic working without divinity would be like brainwashing and even if it worked it should be anathema
I haven't said I believe that magic works at all - though as a general rule I think life tends to bring us evidence that confirms our beliefs, and I suppose that is true of pagan practices as it is of all beliefs.
To pray to God, whom Christians believe in as 'a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth', and to lay your problems there, and ask for God to deal with them according to his divine wisdom - and his love for the other parties as much as for you, is completely different from invoking 'a god' or other spiritual entities to implement your bidding through a spell. You can't curse anyone through prayer - it's a contradiction in terms.
I am not judging you for the spirituality that you practise, and I am sure you do so carefully with the highest good for all concerned uppermost in your thoughts. But that is not the same for everyone, and none of it is the same as praying to 'God'.
Ah so praying to my goddess is not the same?
You tell me. If you're praying, the way I've described it, I can't argue a difference. If you're casting a spell, using a charm, a curse, yes there's hella difference.
Anyways, night all.
As I said to gealbahn we should take this to dm rather than boring folk. welcome to come discusss
BBC News - TJ Ducklo: White House suspends aide for 'threatening reporter'
A White House spokesman has been suspended for a week without pay after allegedly threatening to "destroy" a female reporter who was asking questions about his private life.
It is a significantly weakened England team....no Anderson, Archer, Buttler and they dropped Bess (despite getting 4 wickets in the 1st Innings).
And if you listen to the Indian Cricket commentary team, England at 100.0 would still be too short.
Indeed, although most of the Indian team — apart from Kohli — just didnt seem very energised about playing in the previous match. Their body language was a bit negative, even before it was obvious England were going to win.
I saw an article on the BBC website saying that Coca Cola are looking to develop a bottle that is plastic-free.
I thought they already did. A glass bottle.
Used to be an absolute treat when I were a nipper. Pizza Express with Cola in GLASS BOTTLES!!
Glass bottles most definitely THE superior way of enjoying Coca-Cola.
Best is walking a mile on a hot day to get a flat fixed at a gas station somewhere way south of the Mason-Dixon line, finding an old-school coke machine, putting in a thin dime (like I said, old school) and pulling out a perfectly-chilled bottle.
Cold enough that the humidity starts beading up on the outside, and when you pop the cap liquid inside starts forming ice crystals in your mouth as you drink it down. Ambrosia of the gods!
Sounds like hard work.
But it’s true that Coke is best in adversity. I drink it if I have a severe stomach upset: replaces electrolytes, and kills most known bacteria.
Coke (no ice) was my go-to drink on foreign business trips. That - and fresh lime soda in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh.
It's my only addiction - have drunk 2 cans a day most days all my adult life. Doesn't appear to be literally addictive - I've had 2-week stays with friends who refuse to have it in th ehouse without feeling a craving. I just like it, for the reasons you say. ~I think you only get the real icy sensation with a can, though - plastic bottles not so much.
The obvious answer here is no, it wont change the fact they were executed and no on living was responsible
So, not a believer in vampires then. Or do the undead not count as "living"? These are indeed pressing issues and if we are lucky it might leave the Scottish Parliament insufficient time to debate the latest version of the Hate Speech bill which remains an abomination.
Why would I believe in vampires or other undead, apart from the louse of hords
Well if we are being required to believe in witches, why not?
Witches were sort of a different kettle of fish, more free thinkers that challenged the church ideology than creatures of myth
Nonsense.
Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh and practising ritual cannabalism.
Apologies. It seemed you were claiming greater trend to find them guilty of witchcraft if someone was a feminist or with propensities for social reform, or an independent free thinker. You would have to provide some evidence or a citation for that.
I was pointing out merely that most convicted of witchcrarft tended to be those that went against the social norms, annoyed their neighbours enough or followed other faiths was all
What about too intelligent? Too pretty?
Quite probably too, being proclaimed a witch was fairly easy in some times for a lot of reasons
I am sorry is it suddenly contentious that a lot of innocent people got condemned for witchcraft? Did I trespass on a woke meme that all accused were guilty all of a sudden. I thought the fact was fairly well accepted
Your previous post was better. The Romans called it Damnatio memoriae - not done from a hatred of images, but a hatred of particular people the images honor. With you it seems your hatred of the people committing the crime of witch-hunting makes all victims martyrs. You don’t seem to offer any evidence to support this belief or know who was killed and why. Though you do concede there were lots of reasons behind accusations.
My initial post on the subject however was no one currently alive had done any witch hunting therefore they should feel no need to apologise for times gone by when people judged differently
“Nonsense yourself, religous rituals are no different to christians turning wine in to blood, bread into flesh”
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
That was later on after being challenged and I was pointing out all faiths have a form of ritual magic is all. Whether they call it that or not. Is there a difference between what I do at the stones on a samhains eve and what a christian does at mass?
Christians and members of all other faiths ask deities for favour via prayer and ritual, but fundamentally, 'man proposes, God disposes'. The point about spells and charms is that you are attempting to manipulate others using the supernatural. Even something as innocuous as a spell for more money, could 'work' by the death of a close family member leading to an inheritance. That's quite dark - and that's before you start on curses etc.
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
Well define the difference for a start between a spell and a prayer for something to happen. I cast a love spell for x to fall in love with me. I pray for x to fall in love with me.
Secondly where have I canonized anyone as I said first off we should not be apologising for the executions because they weren't done by us but in a time where witchcraft was claimed to be a crime.
Thirdly I dont think at any point I have said christian bad I merely said some christian practices such as transubstantation are no different to what others call magic rituals
Most religions have a strict moral code that would mean you wouldn't pray for something that fell outside of that moral code. Because you wouldn't think you would get it - from God. Few would use prayer for something like manipulating someone to fall in love with you if that ran counter to their natural feelings - and probably wouldn't expect to get it if they did.
I know you haven't said Christian bad - I wasn't accusing you of that, I was making a general point.
You really think that many havent knelt at the altar rail and thought if only bobby/ billie jean fell in love with me? That is naive
They may well have, but fundamentally in the act of doing that, they were taking that issue and leaving it in God's hands. I am sure it gave them relief, and hey, in some cases, perhaps it worked out and the other person did fall in love with them. That's quite different to casting a spell on the other person - I'm surprised you can't see that.
Why surprised a spell is merely a prayer with more ceremony
we are just more honest and call it what it is
Hmm I think I just worked out the issue here between us...you believe that magic works without the intervention of a god whereas I dont. Magic working without divinity would be like brainwashing and even if it worked it should be anathema
I haven't said I believe that magic works at all - though as a general rule I think life tends to bring us evidence that confirms our beliefs, and I suppose that is true of pagan practices as it is of all beliefs.
To pray to God, whom Christians believe in as 'a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth', and to lay your problems there, and ask for God to deal with them according to his divine wisdom - and his love for the other parties as much as for you, is completely different from invoking 'a god' or other spiritual entities to implement your bidding through a spell. You can't curse anyone through prayer - it's a contradiction in terms.
I am not judging you for the spirituality that you practise, and I am sure you do so carefully with the highest good for all concerned uppermost in your thoughts. But that is not the same for everyone, and none of it is the same as praying to 'God'.
Ah so praying to my goddess is not the same?
You tell me. If you're praying, the way I've described it, I can't argue a difference. If you're casting a spell, using a charm, a curse, yes there's hella difference.
Anyways, night all.
As I said to gealbahn we should take this to dm rather than boring folk. welcome to come discusss
Speaking personally, I was finding your exchange quite interesting. I have a view or two, but sometimes you learn something just by reading. It beats another thread on AV anyway...
Polling at the moment shows Starmer has mainly been highly attractive to former Liberal Democrat voters in southern seats. “We might get to Blair levels in the south of England but not win back enough seats to get us a majority,” said one insider.
.
Makes sense, although that's terrible for the LDs - Labour already have second places in various parliamentary seats where the LDs used to be the second choice at least, and at some point that might filter down to local gov as well.
Semi-anecdotal confirmation of the drift here in deepest Toryland (the Tories are safe either way so people may as well vote their actual preference) - coming across quite a few LD-Lab switchers (but no Con switchers). The usual comment is that the LibDems have "gone awfully quiet", which is I think in fact a bit unfair - a combination of inability to leaflet and the pandemic monopolising the news. We have the same problem, frankly.
I saw an article on the BBC website saying that Coca Cola are looking to develop a bottle that is plastic-free.
I thought they already did. A glass bottle.
Used to be an absolute treat when I were a nipper. Pizza Express with Cola in GLASS BOTTLES!!
Glass bottles most definitely THE superior way of enjoying Coca-Cola.
Best is walking a mile on a hot day to get a flat fixed at a gas station somewhere way south of the Mason-Dixon line, finding an old-school coke machine, putting in a thin dime (like I said, old school) and pulling out a perfectly-chilled bottle.
Cold enough that the humidity starts beading up on the outside, and when you pop the cap liquid inside starts forming ice crystals in your mouth as you drink it down. Ambrosia of the gods!
Sounds like hard work.
But it’s true that Coke is best in adversity. I drink it if I have a severe stomach upset: replaces electrolytes, and kills most known bacteria.
Coke (no ice) was my go-to drink on foreign business trips. That - and fresh lime soda in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh.
It's my only addiction - have drunk 2 cans a day most days all my adult life. Doesn't appear to be literally addictive - I've had 2-week stays with friends who refuse to have it in th ehouse without feeling a craving. I just like it, for the reasons you say. ~I think you only get the real icy sensation with a can, though - plastic bottles not so much.
Coke in glass bottle is better than coke in a can is better than coke in plastic bottle.
Tastes better AND definitely icier. Plus it feels better in your hand, which strangely enough is part of the experience.
Have on my desk a set of six miniature coke bottles, entitled "Evolution of the Coca-Cola Contour Bottle" (1998) > 1899 - "of the Hutchinson stoppered variety, cylindrical with now famous "Coca-Cola" written in the glass > 1900 - "crown top straight sided bottles" with paper labels as well as C-C logo in the glass > 1915 - prototype of "hobbleskirt" flared bottle, without paper label but retaining C-C glass logo > 1915 - introduction of classic bottle, like above but bulging less from the middle > 1957 - replaced C-C glass logo with painted white C-C, otherwise no change > 1961 - replaced painted white C-C with red band with white stripes & C-C logo
On topic, one of the reasons the UK is at the top of the list for vaccinations is that the vast majority of anti-lockdown advocates here are generally in favour of taking the vaccine (because they see it as way to end the lockdown), whereas in other countries the two tend to go together more readily.
I have been giving Ed Conway on Sky News some credit for more recently doing a decent job...then this knobhead pops up, asking where the vaccine effect, no sign of it on hospital admissions....is it because we aren't using 3 week dosing strategy like Israel...
No you massive bellend, it takes roughly 3 weeks to go from infection to hospitalization. So people in hospital now where getting infected ~21 Jan, and it takes at least 3 weeks for vaccines to have much protective effect, so only those jabbed before start of the year will have significant protection (of those included in the figures)....which was really quite a small number of people compared to now.
Also his chart data only goes to the what looks like 8th Feb.
I don't understand how after nearly as year of this, so many in the media don't get this lag timeline. There was a great chart early on, which showed really nicely the progression of the data and how the tsunami takes that so many weeks to hit even when you know its coming.
I don't understand how after nearly as year of this, so many in the media don't get this lag timeline. There was a great chart early on, which showed really nicely the progression of the data and how the tsunami takes that so many weeks to hit even when you know its coming.
They're suffering from a condition called now-ism which is very prevalent these days.
Quick query - occasionally yours truly likes to imbed a youtube clip into a comment.
Is this still problematic for some PBers? Don't want to do it IF it's more detrimental than beneficial.
Tweets are more of a problem imo, especially when they attract replies, as browsers get confused and jump about. In either case, if you remove the "https://" part from the link, it will not be expanded. (I realise it is a bit late now.)
Quick query - occasionally yours truly likes to imbed a youtube clip into a comment.
Is this still problematic for some PBers? Don't want to do it IF it's more detrimental than beneficial.
Tweets are more of a problem imo, especially when they attract replies, as browsers get confused and jump about. In either case, if you remove the "https://" part from the link, it will not be expanded. (I realise it is a bit late now.)
Thanks! So sounds like youtubing is ok (in moderation) but tweeting best avoided, or rather NOT expanded.
Comments
Best is walking a mile on a hot day to get a flat fixed at a gas station somewhere way south of the Mason-Dixon line, finding an old-school coke machine, putting in a thin dime (like I said, old school) and pulling out a perfectly-chilled bottle.
Cold enough that the humidity starts beading up on the outside, and when you pop the cap liquid inside starts forming ice crystals in your mouth as you drink it down. Ambrosia of the gods!
My 'central estimate' for pubs is w/c 26 April. Just in time for the May bank holidays.
I think it is unfortunate for Irish exporters and I don't consider that a good thing. But they will adapt.
FWIW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Chase_Smith
... On June 1, 1950, Smith delivered a fifteen-minute speech on the Senate floor, known as the "Declaration of Conscience," in which she refused to name McCarthy directly but denounced "the reckless abandon in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle."[26] She said McCarthyism had "debased" the Senate to "the level of a forum of hate and character assassination."[4] She defended every American's "right to criticize ... right to hold unpopular beliefs ... right to protest; the right of independent thought."[27] While acknowledging her desire for Republicans' political success, she said, "I don't want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the four horsemen of calumny—fear, ignorance, bigotry, and smear."[14] Six other moderate Republican Senators signed onto her Declaration: Wayne Morse of Oregon, George Aiken of Vermont, Edward Thye of Minnesota, Irving Ives of New York, Charles Tobey of New Hampshire, and Robert C. Hendrickson of New Jersey.[26]
In response to her speech, McCarthy referred to Smith and the six other Senators as "Snow White and the Six Dwarfs."[14] He removed her as a member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, giving her seat to Senator Richard Nixon of California.[24] He also helped finance an unsuccessful primary challenger during Smith's re-election campaign in 1954.[13] Smith later observed, "If I am to be remembered in history, it will not be because of legislative accomplishments, but for an act I took as a legislator in the U.S. Senate when on June 1, 1950, I spoke ... in condemnation of McCarthyism, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin had the Senate paralyzed with fear that he would purge any Senator who disagreed with him."[22] She voted for McCarthy's censure in 1954...
Is this still problematic for some PBers? Don't want to do it IF it's more detrimental than beneficial.
If Labour is struggling, it’s because it doesn’t yet have the vision of the future. That is where Starmer urgently needs to concentrate IMO.
There's only one real reason why Scotland gets such a substantial uplift in public sector funding (which it does, however much some very loud people claim to the contrary,) and that's to bribe the population into sticking with the Union. If they were net contributors to the Treasury they'd have voted to leave in 2014.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/12/keir-starmer-to-kick-off-policy-blitz-in-move-to-head-off-labour-critics
But it’s true that Coke is best in adversity. I drink it if I have a severe stomach upset: replaces electrolytes, and kills most known bacteria.
LAB: 33% (-5) (2016: 31%) (2017: 27%)
LDEM: 9% (+2) (2016: 15%) (2017: 18%)
(Bracketed are the actual local results in 2016 and 2017)
2016 elections were incredibly static - Tories lost one council, LibDems gained one.
2017 elections were much better for the Conservatives - they gained 11 councils, whilst Labour lost 7.
The elections in May will be a combo of the seats last up in these two sets of elections. On this poll, you would expect the Conservatives to do much better on the 2016 seats - Tories up 9%, Labour up 2. Net +7 for the Tories over 2016.
On the 2017 seats, Tories are down 1%, Labour are up 6% Net +5% for Labour over 2017.
It could make for a difficult night for SKS, especially on those 2016 seats. Even worse is several other recent polls have had the Tories in the low 40's, so it might understate their current strength.
Bear in mind, May could be peak vaccine-boost for Boris. And peak lockdown release boost.
LibDems are down 6% on 2016 and down 9% on 2017. It could be quite a brutal night for them - they won 378 seats in 2016, up 45 and won 441seats in 2017 - down 42.
Attlee led one of the three radical Governments of the 20th Century (the other two being Asquith and Thatcher) and served with distinction in the wartime coalition (as did other Labour figures, something else often overlooked).
Given the roughly 40 year gap perhaps Johnson sees himself as leading another radical Government - perhaps his example shouldn't be Thatcher but Attlee.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-56025773
Right now, Johnson deserves to be riding high. For most people, Brexit is done, hasn't been a problem and has been vindicated. The vaccine strategy has paid off in spades. Personally, I'd quibble a bit round the edges of whether the UK's lead is all that (as @rcs1000 has pointed out, there are zillions of doses coming into the rich world over the spring and summer; and in the meantime, unlocking will be driven by weather as much as anything), but it's a genuine achievement.
It's possible that the government really is flying. It's also possible that it's like they coyote that has run halfway across the canyon and hasn't yet noticed that gravity eventually acts even in cartoons. In the second case, no amount of charisma will save Johnson. And whilst he has a great talent for making people like him, he also has a great record of letting people down.
We shall, as you say, see. Which is what makes it interesting.
Maine and New England are still proud of her: an icon of mid-20th-century American politics.
Starmer needs one big idea.
The accusation thrown in this post at all Christians? How does it differ from what the protest movement threw at the Catholics?
And in other bad news for Welsh Labour, Scotland are favourites in Murrayfield tomorrow.
And you are sure this is history? Not that in some places on this earth today you will be murdered as a witch for what you believe in?
I was surprised to see France haven't won it since 2010 apparently, it feels like it must have been more recent than that.
And Italy have won the Wooden Spoon 15 times since joining. Not good enough.
Having lived in Georgia, I can attest to @SeaShantyIrish2 description of an old style machine in the American South. Great on a hot day. Glass bottles are simply better to drink out of and keep the beverage cold a little longer too.
Though private polling before the elections, which are scheduled for 6 May, has been mixed – described in briefings as abysmal in some places – there are chances for Labour to make some symbolic gains, including the high-profile West Midlands mayoralty.
Whatever the criticism of the leaked “flags and veterans” strategy that drew some derision, advisers are determined there must be a broader push to appeal to voters who have previously voted Conservative.
Polling at the moment shows Starmer has mainly been highly attractive to former Liberal Democrat voters in southern seats. “We might get to Blair levels in the south of England but not win back enough seats to get us a majority,” said one insider.
They're right, of course, to want to try to win over Tory voters, although judging by the squealing over the flags they may struggle to do that without causing the Corbyn Left to revolt.
Failing that, a process of throttling the already weakened Lib Dems doesn't get them very far: Labour risks ending up without enough Con-Lab switchers in the North to start rebuilding the Red Wall, and merely splitting the anti-Con vote in the remaining Southern seats where the LDs still came a respectable second last time around. Come the next election, the end result would be little or no progress for Labour and another Conservative victory.
So let’s turn to yours then. Very interesting. How far back does it go?
Undoubtedly a lot of these women were not witches. And undoubtedly even most of those who were probably practised it in a very benign way, and NONE deserved their fate. However, their current canonisation after the fact has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that the current media narrative is 'Christian bad' - and that means all the historic enemies of Christianity must be good. We should consider witchcraft carefully before we just put it into the 'good' category.
There is this guy who supported Trump on the merits of drinking Bleach, yet I find myself liking all his recent posts.
by Charlie Daniels, Charles Fred Hayward, Fred Edwards, James W. Marshall, John Crain, William J. Digregorio
If you ever go back into Wooly Swamp son you better not go at night
There's things out there in the middle of them woods
That'd make a strong man die from fright
There's things that crawl and things that fly
And things that creep around on the ground
And they say the ghost of Lucias Clay gets up and it walks around
But I couldn't believe it, I just had to find out for myself
And I couldn't conceive it, I never would listen to nobody else
No I couldn't believe it, I just had to find out for myself
That there's some things in this world you just can't explain
The old man lived in the Wooly Swamp way back in Booger Woods
And he never did do a lot of harm in the world
But he never did do no good
People didn't think too much of him
They all thought he acted funny
The old man didn't care about people anyway
All he cared about was money
He'd stuff it all down in Mason jars and bury it all around
And on certain nights if the moon was right
He'd dig it up out of the ground.
He'd pour it all out on the floor of his shack
And run his fingers through it
Yeah, Lucias Clay was a greedy old man
And that's all there was to it
But I couldn't believe it, I just had to find out for myself . . .
The Clayton boys were white trash they lived over on Carver's Creek
They were mean as a snake and sneaky as a cat
And belligerent when they'd speak
One night the oldest brother said, ya'll meet in the Wooly Swamp later
We'll get old Lucias's money and we'll feed him to the alligators
They found the old man out in the back with a shovel in his hand
And thirteen rusty Mason jars he just dug up out of the sand.
And they all went crazy and they beat the old man
And they picked him up off the ground
Then they threw him in the swamp and they stood there and laughed
Till the black water sucked him down
Then they turned around and went back to the shack
And they picked up the money and ran.
But they hadn't gone nowhere when they realized
They were running in quicksand
And they struggled and screamed but they couldn't get away
Then just before they went under
They could hear that old man laughing
In a voice as loud as thunder
Now that's been fifty years ago and if you go back by there again
There's a spot in the yard in back of that shack
Where the ground is always wet
And on certain nights if the moon is right
And you're down by the dark footpath
You can hear three young men screaming
And you can hear one old man laugh
If you ever go back into Wooly Swamp son you better not go at night
There's things out there in the middle of them woods
That'd make a strong man die from fright
There's things that crawl and things that fly
And things that creep around on the ground
And they say the ghost of Lucias Clay gets up and it walks around
But I couldn't believe it, I just had to find out for myself . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RINjwFfSfpk
Secondly where have I canonized anyone as I said first off we should not be apologising for the executions because they weren't done by us but in a time where witchcraft was claimed to be a crime.
Thirdly I dont think at any point I have said christian bad I merely said some christian practices such as transubstantation are no different to what others call magic rituals
What I am getting at is, who copied who? Did you copy the Christians/Orphism, or the Christians copy you?
Incidentally, I don't think that Labour has a hope in hell of winning back the West Midlands mayorality, simply because Street will benefit massively from the benefits of first time mayoral incumbency, as will Burnham.
I know you haven't said Christian bad - I wasn't accusing you of that, I was making a general point.
The election is a long way away so Labour will evidently be keeping their fingers crossed that the Government simply blows itself up. But if the Tories are ready to put up a serious fight then Labour could do worse than to make some kind of accommodation with the Lib Dems. If they don't try too hard in each others' targets then it could easily be worth an extra ten seats each. And if they don't want to look too chummy with one another then they can always play up another bitch fight over Sheffield Hallam for the sake of appearances.
To pray to God, whom Christians believe in as 'a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth', and to lay your problems there, and ask for God to deal with them according to his divine wisdom - and his love for the other parties as much as for you, is completely different from invoking 'a god' or other spiritual entities to implement your bidding through a spell. You can't curse anyone through prayer - it's a contradiction in terms.
I am not judging you for the spirituality that you practise, and I am sure you do so carefully with the highest good for all concerned uppermost in your thoughts. But that is not the same for everyone, and none of it is the same as praying to 'God'.
But if you start there, how does it unfold? reconnecting organically to the universe, through worship and ritual. Or requiring the medium of a God?
In which case how is pagan God really any different from Christian God? Or, following chicken and egg, more the likely, the other way around.
He’s a big, big PB favourite - widely recognised on this site as the D-Dogg: simply the best.
Mark Drakeford, PB salutes you.
Anyways, night all.
BBC News - TJ Ducklo: White House suspends aide for 'threatening reporter'
A White House spokesman has been suspended for a week without pay after allegedly threatening to "destroy" a female reporter who was asking questions about his private life.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56045877
He put a spell on us all.
India 1.65
England 4.2
Draw 6
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/cricket/test-matches/india-v-england-betting-30278279
And if you listen to the Indian Cricket commentary team, England at 100.0 would still be too short.
Tastes better AND definitely icier. Plus it feels better in your hand, which strangely enough is part of the experience.
Have on my desk a set of six miniature coke bottles, entitled "Evolution of the Coca-Cola Contour Bottle" (1998)
> 1899 - "of the Hutchinson stoppered variety, cylindrical with now famous "Coca-Cola" written in the glass
> 1900 - "crown top straight sided bottles" with paper labels as well as C-C logo in the glass
> 1915 - prototype of "hobbleskirt" flared bottle, without paper label but retaining C-C glass logo
> 1915 - introduction of classic bottle, like above but bulging less from the middle
> 1957 - replaced C-C glass logo with painted white C-C, otherwise no change
> 1961 - replaced painted white C-C with red band with white stripes & C-C logo
Internal figures seen by the BBC show outbound roll-on roll-off lorry traffic for Great Britain for the month so far at 98% of last February's levels.
Inbound traffic is at 99% of last year's levels.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56044610
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvTz24XmPA4
No you massive bellend, it takes roughly 3 weeks to go from infection to hospitalization. So people in hospital now where getting infected ~21 Jan, and it takes at least 3 weeks for vaccines to have much protective effect, so only those jabbed before start of the year will have significant protection (of those included in the figures)....which was really quite a small number of people compared to now.
Also his chart data only goes to the what looks like 8th Feb.