• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
Tom Sewell

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Recommended Posts

Tedd, you are deliberately making underpowered wands
This may be acceptable for training and demonstration purposes, but where are the overpowered wands?

No Ashley, you probably won't "accidentally" transform someone 
It requires a lot of deliberate effort to accidentally enchant another human

And is Google Translate good enough?
If Tedd is going to become a Priest, it would be advisable to actually learn Latin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

If Tedd is going to become a Priest, it would be advisable to actually learn Latin

Depends. You do fine without it as a Protestant.

And as I understand it, the Greek Catholics for some reason prefer Classical Greek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

43 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

And as I understand it, the Greek Catholics for some reason prefer Classical Greek.

Pssst, big secret: The New Testament was originally written in Greek and later translated into Latin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.

Although Aramaic was at that point spoken in Judea / Galilee.  The Greek texts of the New Testament are regarded as the original, which makes some sense (Greek and Latin were widely used in the Roman Empire, with Greek being stronger in the eastern parts of the Empire).  A fair amount of what Jesus said, he probably said in Aramaic though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Practice safe hex. Use a wandom.

/me makes a note in The List

You have been warned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Safe Hex/Wandom only rates a WARNING!?

/me is disappointing Me

Back in the day, that would have earned Me a nuclear response from /me

I wander if we collectively have slacked off too much in our punning duties allowing /me to build up an unhealthy tolerance for the art?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

I wander if we collectively have slacked off too much in our punning duties allowing /me to build up an unhealthy tolerance for the art?

Read many Xanth books?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Safe Hex/Wandom only rates a WARNING!?

/me is disappointing Me

Back in the day, that would have earned Me a nuclear response from /me

I wander if we collectively have slacked off too much in our punning duties allowing /me to build up an unhealthy tolerance for the art?

Well, /me is dealing with other issues today, so yeah, something like tolerance has built up

Just now, Tom Sewell said:

Read many Xanth books?

Not  in this century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, as experiment to prove the wand is really safe this failed. Diane didn't tried anything.

8 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Tedd, you are deliberately making underpowered wands
This may be acceptable for training and demonstration purposes, but where are the overpowered wands?

I think his gauntlet is still around.

8 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

No Ashley, you probably won't "accidentally" transform someone 
It requires a lot of deliberate effort to accidentally enchant another human

Not with badly designed wand.

8 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

And is Google Translate good enough?
If Tedd is going to become a Priest, it would be advisable to actually learn Latin

Why would she want to became a Priest?

6 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Depends. You do fine without it as a Protestant.

And as I understand it, the Greek Catholics for some reason prefer Classical Greek.

... and Roman Catholics are unlikely to accept genderfluid person, aren't they?

5 hours ago, HarJIT said:

Although Aramaic was at that point spoken in Judea / Galilee.  The Greek texts of the New Testament are regarded as the original, which makes some sense (Greek and Latin were widely used in the Roman Empire, with Greek being stronger in the eastern parts of the Empire).  A fair amount of what Jesus said, he probably said in Aramaic though.

I suspect that fair amount of what Jesus said he actually didn't said or said differently.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

... and Roman Catholics are unlikely to accept genderfluid person, aren't they?

They are unlikely to accept a woman as a priest. To put it mildly.

Forget genderfluid or even the slightest whiff of queer.

It's OK to be a pedophile, mind you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically speaking, it is not "OK" to be a pedophile

The difficulty is that senior management was firmly divided into two camps

Camp 1 found the concept so horrific that they would not believe that the problem existed

Camp 2 was compromised in their ability to administrate by being involved in their own scandals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

... and Roman Catholics are unlikely to accept genderfluid person, aren't they?

1 minute ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Technically speaking, it is not "OK" to be a pedophile

Camp 1 found the concept so horrific that they would not believe that the problem existed

The only reason why I'm not sure if they accept genderfluid person is my suspicion they don't know what that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I suspect that fair amount of what Jesus said he actually didn't said or said differently.

I understand a bit of why people say things like that, the evidence for seems rather circular. While I'm a believer, I acknowledge there isn't really a lot of objective evidence that the person in the Gospels even walked the earth. It doesn't help that things like the reference in Josephus seem to be manufactured. But consider, even as a mythical character, as that character, he has an astounding grasp of the Armor Piercing Question. Which means that at the very least, the author(s) of said character have to possess that same gift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

They are unlikely to accept a woman as a priest. To put it mildly.

Forget genderfluid or even the slightest whiff of queer.

It's OK to be a pedophile, mind you.

It's OK to be queer if you are a priest molesting young boys, apparently. Maybe not OK, but they'll go to great lengths to cover it up and deny it.

 

n my view, the whole, "You are married to God, you don't need a partner" thing is begging for trouble. But so is "abstinence based education" aka "ignorance based education", which is not just RCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

It's OK to be queer if you are a priest molesting young boys, apparently. Maybe not OK, but they'll go to great lengths to cover it up and deny it.

The Moderator: Molesting boys does not make you queer and no queer group will accept you. It makes you a sexual predator.

I strongly urge you to not make that equivalency again. It is one frequently used by homophobes attempting to discredit LGBTQI* people.

-- The Moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
8 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I suspect that fair amount of what Jesus said he actually didn't said or said differently.

I understand a bit of why people say things like that, the evidence for seems rather circular. While I'm a believer, I acknowledge there isn't really a lot of objective evidence that the person in the Gospels even walked the earth. It doesn't help that things like the reference in Josephus seem to be manufactured. But consider, even as a mythical character, as that character, he has an astounding grasp of the Armor Piercing Question. Which means that at the very least, the author(s) of said character have to possess that same gift.

There is difference between saying something as immediate reply and saying it after thinking about situation for some time. However, note that I didn't said that he said LESS ... it's also possible he said MORE but his disciples choose to not record it. Or, maybe they did but it was removed later.

(The stuff in Gospel of Thomas  comes to mind ; I think there are enough contraindications between canonical gospels themselves, but the ones with Gospel of Thomas are serious enough for it to not be accepted and called heresy ...)

The important point however is that with this level of uncertainty of what Jesus said and how faithfully it was recorded, the LANGUAGE he said it in would be just small part of problem.

4 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

n my view, the whole, "You are married to God, you don't need a partner" thing is begging for trouble. But so is "abstinence based education" aka "ignorance based education", which is not just RCs.

That seems extremely obvious. However, ensuring that the priests wouldn't have anyone else than the Church to inherit from them was apparently more important.

I wonder if people who came with these ideas weren't queer themselves ... either in aggressive denial or aces. Or maybe something harder to label.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

The Moderator: Molesting boys does not make you queer and no queer group will accept you. It makes you a sexual predator.

I strongly urge you to not make that equivalency again. It is one frequently used by homophobes attempting to discredit LGBTQI* people.

-- The Moderator

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend nor do I think they are equivalent. A male priest molesting boys is a sexual predator engaging in homosexual behavior, and I would expect a responsible queer parent to understand that. I know several (responsible queer parents; I don't know any priests.) One couple are in-laws, one is a former coworker I eat lunch with regularly, and one was a former customer before she retired.

I have an LGBTQ family member. She is difficult to be around, because she takes offense easily where none is intended. She is loved by her family, accepted by most; her oldest brother is judgemental. But when she comes to visit, things set her off that no one has a clue will bother her. Several of us have independently stepped on her toes by recalling something she did when she was a much younger little boy. As one of her sibs put it, "I guess we have to think of her as two people, one of whom is dead, and the other who suddenly appeared." 

In any case, you haven't changed my opinion. I view the Catholic Church condemning the LGBTQ community and then covering up their priests actions as hypocritical, even if it is also worse. If that bothers you, if my presence here bothers you, I will not be greatly put out to walk away, so to speak. Neither of us need the aggravation. If that is the case, I want to thank you for at least taking the effort to communicate your viewpoint.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I wonder if people who came with these ideas weren't queer themselves ... either in aggressive denial or aces.

There is an element of "Me thinks he protesteth too much" that rears it's head every so often. I suspect we get a bit more than our fair share of that in the US, having a strong religious right, but no monopoly on the crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

A male priest molesting boys is a sexual predator engaging in homosexual behavior,

The Moderator: NO, he is NOT.

Rape in any way or form has nothing to do with sex. It is purely about power. Also, pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is being fixated on children. Children cannot consent and suffer grave harm from what is done to them. If a man brutally beats another man, is it then a 'homosexual' beating?

Homosexuality is what occurs between two sexually mature consenting adults of the same gender. Any claim otherwise is a talking point used by homophobes in an attempt to connect LGBTQI* individuals with sexual predators. They gleefully point out that this is an 'especially heinous' kind of rape because it was 'queer' in nature. It is the underlying 'logic' behind bathroom laws as well. There is no such thing as either 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual' rape; rape is rape and what makes pedophilia particularly brutal is the power differential between adult and child -- and it is exactly that differential that turns the pedophile on.

I am disappointed in you, Darth Fluffy, and I really thought you knew better than to repeat homophobic talking points in these forums. Please do not do so again; if you do, I shall be forced to take steps as moderator -- and I do not want to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

She is difficult to be around, because she takes offense easily where none is intended.

Maybe you ought to consider the possibility that even if you do not intend offense, it is still very possible to cause it. :(

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Several of us have independently stepped on her toes by recalling something she did when she was a much younger little boy.

That is because she was NEVER a boy. She got assigned male gender to her at birth when she had no possible way to resist it or even experience enough to realise it was wrong. Then she was forced to act like a boy until she finally realised that something was wrong and started to fight back. And she is STILL fighting because you still aren't getting it. :(

I recognise all of this very, very well. *sigh*

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

As one of her sibs put it, "I guess we have to think of her as two people, one of whom is dead, and the other who suddenly appeared." 

You ought to think of her as one person and that the person you used to treat her as was something she never was and never wanted to be. And for your information: SHE WAS ALWAYS THERE. You just used to treat her in a way that badly hurt her, and you are letting your old bad habits continue to harm her. :(

3 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

If that bothers you, if my presence here bothers you, I will not be greatly put out to walk away, so to speak.

Your presence does not bother me. Your internalised homophobia and transmisogyny bother me a great deal. I would ask you to please, please, please look into what being trans or queer really means. Not for my sake -- you don't have to engage with me and I am just a stranger on a forum, but for your sister's sake. You are hurting her. Your intentions do not matter. Results do. I am sure you don't want to hurt her, and you badly need to work on learning how not to. And I can't help you, for I am too distant, I don't have the resources to, and you have no reason to trust me. :(

~tOH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this